SUDAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES

An Investigation into Coherence and Cohesion in

Sudanese EFL Learners’ Writing. A case Study of
Three Sudanese Universities
‫دراسة التناغم والترابط اللغوي في كتابة الطل ب الجامعيين‬
‫السودانيين المتخصصين في اللغة النجليزية باعتبارها لغة‬
‫أجنبية‬
‫ ثل ث جامعات سودانية‬:‫دراسة حالة‬

A Thesis Submitted to Department of English ,College of Languages in

Fulfillment of the Requirements for Ph.D . Degree in English(Applied
Linguistics)

Submitted by : Manahil Mukhtar Mohammed Bashir

Supervised by: Dr. Abdalla Yassin Abdalla

December 2010
 Dedication

To the soul of my father

To my mother

To my sisters, brothers and to my husband.

ii
 Acknowledgment

First of all praise is to Allah the Almighty for helping me to

complete this work. My gratitude is also to my supervisor Dr . Abdalla
Yassin for his patience in supervising this work. Without his valuable
advice and good guidance ,this work would not have been completed.
My thanks are extended to Dr. Omer Bushara, Dean of the faculty of
Education ,University of Dongola, for his unlimited help and guidance.
Also I want to express my thanks to Dr. Fadel Almola Mohamed who
helped me in the statistical analysis of this study. My gratitude is also to
Dr. Abdeljaleel Abdalla the former head of the Department at
University of Dongola.

My gratitude is also extended to Dr. Yassir Hassan ,head of the

English Department, Faculty of Arts, Omdurman Islamic university, the
staff and the students of the department. I also want to thank the English
Departments in the Faculty of Education in AlZaiem AlAzhary
University and Dongola university.

My thanks are also due to the staff of the library of the College of
Languages, Sudan University of Science and Technology.

At the end I should like to thank all the members of my family

and my husband.

Abstract
This study aims at investigating coherence and cohesion in
Sudanese EFL learners' writing. The researcher used the descriptive and
iii
analytical method quantitively and qualitatively in her research design.
It is a descriptive and an analytical study. The researcher used two tests:
an objective test and an essay written test. The validity and reliability of
these tests were confirmed by different methods as will be shown in
(3.2.1&3.2.2). The researcher conducted her tests in three different
Sudanese universities. The sample of the study consisted of hundred
Sudanese students in three Sudanese universities. All the subjects were
majoring in English at the third and fourth year level.
The data were analyzed by using the statistical program
(SPSS),then there was a textual analysis of the subjects' written texts.
The data analysis showed that, there is a weakness in Sudanese Students'
written work due to their ignorance of coherence and cohesion.
Moreover, university students do not use cohesive devices
appropriately. Also the study revealed that there is no significant
difference in the achievement of the students of the three universities of
the study.
At the end of the study the researcher presented some
recommendations concerning the instructors and syllabus designers.
These recommendations focused on paying attention to the questions of
(coherence & cohesion) when teaching or designing syllabuses . At the
end the researcher suggested some topics in the same area for further
study.

Abstract(Arabic Version)

‫مستخلص الدراسة‬

iv
‫تهدف الدراسة لبحث التناغم المعنوى والترابط اللغوى فى‬
‫كتابات الطل ب الجامعيين السودانيين المتخصصين فى اللغة‬
‫النجليزية بالمستويين الثالث والرابع‪.‬‬
‫ً‬ ‫ً‬
‫تبنت الباحثه المنهج الوصفى التحليلى كما وكيفا ‪ .‬وقد‬
‫إستخدمت الباحثة نوعين من التختبارات كأداتى بحث ‪ ,‬التختبار‬
‫الول إتختبار مقالى والثانى إتختبار موضوعى‪.‬وقد أثبت صدق‬
‫وثبات التختبارين كما سيرد فى الفصل الثالث‪,‬المبحث الول‬
‫والثانى‪.‬‬
‫تكونت عينة الدراسة من تخمسين طالب وتخمسين طالبة‬
‫بالمستويين الثالث والرابع‪,‬جميعهم يدرسون اللغة النجليزية‬
‫كتخصص رئيس بثل ث جامعات سودانية مختلفة‪.‬‬
‫قامت الباحثة بتحليل البيانات إحصائيا ً مستخدمة برنامج‬
‫التحليل الحصائي )‪ (SPSS‬كما قامت الباحثة بتحليل نصى‬
‫لمقالت أؤلئك الطل ب‪.‬‬
‫أظهر تحليل البيانات أن الضعف فى كتابات الطل ب‬
‫الجامعيين السودانيين ُيعزى لعدم معرفتهم للتناغم المعنوى‬
‫والترابط اللغوى‪.‬بالضافة الى أن طل ب الجامعات السودانية ل‬
‫يستطيعوا إستخدام أدوات الربط بطريقة صحيحة‪.‬توصلت‬
‫الدراسة أيضا ً الى أنه ل توجد فروقات ذات دللة إحصائية بين‬
‫طل ب الثل ث جامعات موضوع البحث‪.‬‬
‫فى تختام الدراسة ‪ ,‬أوصت الباحثة على ضوء النتائج‬
‫المتحصل عليها بعدة توصيات للهتمام بالعنصرين موضوع‬
‫الدراسة) الترابط اللغوى والتناغم المعنوى( وذلك بوضعهما فى‬
‫العتبار فى تصميم المناهج وإهتمام إساتذة الجامعات‬
‫بتدريسهما‪.‬أيضا ً إقترحت الباحثة دراسات أتخرى فى نفس‬
‫المجال لم تتطرق لها الدراسة الحالية‪.‬‬

‫‪Table of Contents‬‬
‫‪Subject‬‬ ‫‪Page‬‬
‫‪Dedication‬‬ ‫‪ii‬‬
‫‪Acknowledgement‬‬ ‫‪iii‬‬
‫)‪Abstract (English‬‬ ‫‪iv‬‬
‫)‪Abstract (Arabic version‬‬ ‫‪v‬‬
‫‪Table of contents‬‬ ‫‪vi‬‬
‫‪List of tables‬‬ ‫‪xi‬‬
‫‪List of appendices‬‬ ‫‪xiii‬‬

‫‪v‬‬
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
1.1. Context of the Problem 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem 4
1.3. Research Questions 7
1.4. Research Hypotheses 8
1.5 Research Objectives 8
1.6. Significance of the Research 9
1.7. Methodology 10
1.8. Definition of Terms 11
1.9. Outline of the Research 11
CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Coherence 12
2.1.1. Local coherence versus Global coherence 15
2.1.2. Approaches to Coherence 16
2.1.2.1. Process-Oriented Approach to Coherence 16
2.1.2.2. Product-Oriented Approach to Coherence 18
2.2. Cohesion 21
2.2.1. Cohesive Devices 23
2.2.1.1. Reference cohesion 24
2.2.1.2. Ellipsis and substitution 25
2.2.1.2.1. Nominal ellipsis 26
2.2.1.2.2. Verbal ellipsis 26
2.2.1.2.3. Clausal ellipsis 26
2.2.1.3. Conjunctive cohesion 27
2.2.1.4. Lexical cohesion 28
2.3. Linguistic Conceptions of Coherence and Cohesion 30
2.3.1. Textual perspective 30
2.3.2. Pragmatic perspective 33
vi
 2.3.3. Information perspective 36
2.3.4. Cognitive perspective 39
2.4. Non-linguistic conceptions of coherence and 41
cohesion
2.4.1. The writer and the reader 41
2.4.2. Schema theory 43
2.5 Review of Related Previous Literature 44
2.6.Summary of the Chapter 52
CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY
3.1. Population 53
3.2. Research Tools 54
3.2.1. Test Validity 56
3.2.2. Test Reliability 57
3.3. Procedures 58
3.4. The Scoring of the Test 58
3.4.1. Cohesion measure 58
3.4.2. Coherence measure 59
CHAPTER FOUR

Data Analysis, Results & Discussion

4.1. Analysis of the results 63
4.1.1. The first hypothesis 63
4.1.2. The second hypothesis 70
4.1.3. The third hypothesis 73
4.1.4. The fourth hypothesis 77
4.2. Textual Analysis 79
4.2.1. Cohesion 80
4.2.1.1. Reference 81
4.2.1.2. Conjunctive 82
4.2.1.3. Lexical 83

vii
 4.2.1.4. Ellipsis and Substitution 83
4.2.2. Coherence 84
4.2.2.1. Topic Development 85
4.2.2.2. Topic Focus 86
4.2.2.3. Topic Relevance 87
4.2.2.4. Topic Continuity 88
4.2.2.5. Topic Organization 89
4.3. Summary of the Chapter 91
CHAPTER FIVE

Summary, Conclusion, Recommendations and Suggestions for

Further Studies
5.1. Summary of the study 93

5.2. Conclusions of the study 95

5.3 Recommendations 96
5.4. Suggestions for further studies 98
- Bibliography 99
- Appendices 114

List of tables

Tables Page
Table ( 3.1 ) The distribution of the subjects 53

viii
Table (4.1)Subjects of University of Dongola 62

Table (4.2) Subjects of AlZaiem AlAzhary University 62

Table (4.3) Subjects of Omdurman Islamic University 63

Table (4.4) The achievement in coherence when the pass score is 50% 64
Table (4.5)The achievement in cohesion when the pass score is 50% 64

Table (4.6) The analysis of the first test 65

Table (4.7) The analysis of the objective test 65

Table (4.8) The analysis of the two tests together 66

Table (4.9) The students’ achievement when the pass score is 40% 67
and the pass score is 30%
Table (4.10) Maximum &Minimum Scores of Cohesion- Coherence 67
tests
Table(4.11.1) Comparison between the achievement of the students of 69
the third year & the fourth year
Table (4.11.2) Comparison between the students of the third year & 70
the fourth year in the second test
Table (4.12) Mean of Maximum and Minimum Score of Cohesion 71
Categories
Table (4.13) Frequency of cohesive devices in the student’s 71
written texts
Table (4.14) Percentage of cohesive devices 72
Table (4.15) Difference in achieving coherence &cohesion among 74
the three universities the first test
Table (4.16) Difference in achieving coherence & cohesion 75
among
ix
universities
Table (4.17) Differences in achieving coherence level 75

Table (4.18) Differences in Cohesion level 76

Table (4.19) Correlation between coherence &Cohesion in the 77
students written texts
Table (4.20)Correlation between coherence &Cohesion 78

x
 List of Appendices

Appendix Page

Appendix(A) TEST(1) 114

Appendix(B) Test( 2) 115

Appendix(c) Model Answers of Test( 2) 119

Appendix( D) List of Academic Jury 124

Appendix( E ) Factor analysis for the second test items 125

(statistical validity)

Appendix(F) Students scores in the first and second tests 126

Appendix (G) Frequency of cohesive device 130

Appendix ( H ) Students score in coherence and cohesion 134

Appendix ( I ) Sample of the students answer in test ( 1 ) 138

Appendix ( J ) sample of the students answer in test ( 2 ) 140

xi
 Chapter One
Introduction
This introductory chapter is concerned with the general theoretical
frame work of the study. Specifically it will comprise the research
problem, the research questions, the hypotheses, the objectives and the
methodology of the study.

1.1. Context of the Problem

It can be argued that the basic aim of TEFL programmes is to
improve learners awareness and performance of English language skills.
Awareness and performance of these skills, namely, listening, speaking,
reading and writing would enable learners to use English for various
purposes.

Generally, language skills are classified into two main categories.

The classification puts listening and reading together as receptive skills,
while speaking and writing as productive skills.

Writing skill is a major skill but it has been given little attention in
the mid-sixties. Writing for EFL learners is a complex skill that is learnt
rather than acquired. Hayes and Flower (1981:55) in their analysis of
the complexity of the writing process and its impact on the cognitive
level state ,

“Writing is no longer considered a linear evaluation of

successive drafts, but recursive articulated development that
triggers the Process of understanding and Creates meanings”

Thus writing is not an easy task for both EFL learners and even
native speakers. EFL learners find it more difficult to write in a
language which is not their mother tongue and they do not fully master.

1
 Composition writing particularly in a foreign language context, is
one of the formidable tasks that poses a challenge even to advanced
learners of English. Mohdy (2003:70-71) states ,

'' being learners of English as foreign language,

Sudanese students are poor writers in English".

In the same sense, he clarifies that arranging words, phrases and

sentences in the right order to create a unified text is a considerable
problem for the students. Most of our students leave their answer books
blank in writing tests, and those who try to write, their texts will be
loaded with many mistakes. In short, the learner must know what to
write and be able to organize his ideas coherently and logically by the
use of correct structure, appropriate vocabulary and proper punctuation.

EFL Sudanese university students are usually asked to write

acceptable texts. These texts vary. They may be notes, compositions,
essays ,articles or even research papers. The academic success of these
students is often evaluated by what they write in paper and texts.
Therefore , students who want to study English at university need to
write as effectively as possible.

Although these students are aware of the rules of grammar and are
capable of producing well-formed sentences, they are often unable to
produce unified and connected texts. Harris (1964:35) states ,

“language does not occur in stray words or sentences

but in connected discourse”

Accordingly, to write effectively and appropriately, EFL

Sudanese university students are required to be able to relate and
organize thoughts in unified and coherent texts. Thus the effectiveness
of the texts lie in both coherence and cohesion. These two notions had

2
been studied by many researchers (e.g. Conner, 1984, Halliday and
Hasan 1976).

Applied linguistics has been concerned with the development of

writing skills for at least 50 years . Another research areas in this field
of study is writing in L1 context and writing in L2 context because
the writing needs of diversity of L2 students groups create a research
area itself (Grabe &Kaplan,1996:.24) . Since the writing needs and
students profiles as EFL context are very different, L2 writing theory
and practice turn out to be complex research area.

Grabe and Kaplan (1996:24) in their discussion of writing

research instruction state ,

"research in L2 writing began in the late 1960s and

early 1970s in the US and the UK. In these researches,
applied linguists gave attention to the writing needs and
problems of students in producing good written texts."

Applied linguists have studied the organization of discourse and

text construction processes and they examined the social contexts in
which students learn to write.

Discourse analysis has received considerable attention from

various researchers e.g. (Brown&Yule;1983; Givon; 1983; Halliday &
Hasan,1976,1985, Van Dijk ,1985;Grabe & Kaplan,1996) and the
researches carried out in this field had provided a better understanding
of the text and the techniques used to examine the nature of the text.

A text is defined as “structural equivalent of language of real use

which coveys meaning in all four senses of Hyme’s (1983:87)
communicative competence, i.e. whether the text is “possible, feasible,
appropriate and performed”, and which suggests a topic of

3
discourse”(Grabe& Kaplan, 1996:40). Moreover, Halliday (1985) adds
that the fact that a text has a formal opening and closing is not enough to
make it a text but the beginning and end of texts need to be determined
according to social and semantic context rather than a formal structural
organization.

Many studies have examined coherence and cohesion in writing.

However, the issue of cohesion and coherence has been questioned
several times. Some researchers, argue that cohesion is not a
contributing factor in coherence and this is one of the hypotheses the
present study is seeking to confirm. The reasons for this is that,
although, students use cohesive ties in their writings, their texts do not
seem to be coherent.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Receiving incoherent papers (texts, articles and essays) from
students continues to be a very frustrating experience for many teachers
and it is equally frustrating not to be able to understand why students are
unable to produce coherent texts or to see why their papers are
incoherent .The students cannot see any problem with coherence in their
written work. What is more, many written textbooks do not provide
useful methods to the teaching and learning of this concept .Therefore,
neither the textbooks nor the instruction in classes seem to the
researcher's observation as a teacher to be successful in dealing with the
coherence related problems.

Many writing instructors encounter the problem of coherence in

their students’ essays since for one reason or another many of these
essays lack coherence.

4
 Researchers have given different explanations for this writing
difficulty. For example Fahnestock (1983:415) claimed,

“helping students understand coherence in terms of

lexical ties and semantic relations is possible between
clauses and sentences gives some structure to an area
of composition instructions’’.

That has been some what haphazard understanding of linguistic

features and rhetorical structures that create coherence as well as a
greater insight into the problems students experience in trying to use
them. This will serve as a semantic approach to teaching academic
writing. Some researchers have to find a relationship between cohesion
density and writing quality e.g.( Hubbard ,1989), whereas other
researchers for example ,(Connor,1984) found that the general cohesion
density was not found to be a discriminating factor between the native
and ESL writers in her study. She emphasized that cohesion analysis
may not be an adequate factor to describe writing quality, and that while
cohesion and coherence interact some what,yet a text need not be
cohesive to be coherent” (Connor ,1984:302). However, she later
suggests that detailed text analysis studies need to be done to investigate
the relationship between cohesion and coherence in different kinds of
writing.

A number of empirical studies had attempted to investigate the

relationship between cohesion and coherence and the results of the
investigations had been mixed.

In the Sudanese context the written English of the university

students is not cohesive and is incoherent. This is rather strange and is
inacceptable. The basic aim of TEFL programmes which they have

5
followed and studied is to improve the learners awareness and
performance of English language skills.

This study will investigate the abilities of producing coherent and

unified texts of the Sudanese EFL university students who are preparing
to graduate with a B.A degree in English. These students are exposed to
a variety of courses in writing skills in addition to a number of other
linguistic courses.

In previous years, there was considerable body of research on the

written production of the Sudanese EFL University students. However,
the problem of coherence and cohesion needs more investigation.
University students evaluation depends to a great extent on their written
texts, so the problem of not producing unified text should be
investigated in depth. For example Gaibir (1995) investigated the use of
cohesive devices in the writing of Sudanese university students at
university of Khartoum. His study results have shown that there has
been correlation between writing quality and use of cohesive devices.
Yahya (2000), assessed the written discourse competence of Sudanese
students at tertiary level. The results have shown that there is lack of
use, misuse and over use of written discourse properties. Yahya's study
was conducted at university of Khartoum, Islamic university and Neilin
University.

Thus, it is still important to investigate this area because,

university students nowadays encounter more problems than their
predecessors. The system of teaching English had been changed from
what had been followed in the past. The syllabus had changed.
Accordingly, the methods of teaching had also changed. That means
when starting teaching English at class five, the learners are still
children or at the early adolescence stage. So the methods of teaching

6
should be suitable for the age and the stage in which it starts. Moreover,
almost all the previous studies had been conducted at old universities,
those universities before what it came to be called the "Revolution of
Higher Education". In this study according to the researcher's experience
in teaching writing courses at Dongola University, found that the
students face many problems in producing written text, specifically
problems of producing well unified texts. The researcher wants to
investigate the problem of coherence and cohesion at three different
universities, represented by Dongola ,AlZaiem AlAzhary and
Omdurman Islamic Universities. The reason for this is to show if these
universities have the same problems or not.

1.3. Research Questions

In tackling the research problem, the researcher specifically
going to answer the following questions,

1. To what extent can weakness of the written work of

university students be attributed to the lack of awareness of
coherence and cohesion?

2. How appropriately do university students use the cohesive

devices?

3- To what extent do the university students of the study differ in

achieving coherence and cohesion in their texts?

4 - To what extent does the use of the cohesive devices correlate to

the coherence of the students' written texts ?

4- 1.4. Research Hypotheses

In order to answer the study questions the researcher proposes the
following hypotheses:

7
1. There is a weakness in Sudanese university Students’ written work
due to their ignorance of coherence and cohesion.

2. University students do not use cohesive devices appropriately.

3. There is no significant difference in the sample students'

achievement of the three universities of the study.

4. There is a significant correlation between the students' use of

cohesive devices and the coherence of their written texts.

1.5. Research Objectives

The study aims at investigating the weakness in using cohesive
devices by university students who are specialized in English at
Dongola, Alzaiem Al Azhary and Omdurman Islamic universities. The
reason for this is that almost all the studies that investigated this area
were conducted at old universities. Here the researcher wants to know
whether students of the new universities encounter the same problems or
not. The study will also investigate lack of coherence in the written texts
of these university students. Moreover, the study will try to look in to
the problems that university students encounter in using cohesive
devices. Moreover, the research will make a comparison among the
students' writing level in the three universities of the study.

Ultimately, the research aims at forwarding some useful

guidelines and insights for enhancing using cohesive devices and
producing coherent texts. Also the research will suggest some strategies
to overcome these problems.

1.6. Significance of the Research

The significance of this research stems from the fact that writing
is a major language skill for achieving fluency in English. Moreover, the

8
target groups are university students who are specialized in English and
will graduate with a B.A degree and might prepare for their M.A
studies.

The study will investigate coherence and cohesion in university

students’ writing. The study also is running behind knowing whether
these students benefit from their three and four year courses of English
at university or not.

There are considerable researches which had been carried out in

the same area, for example, Gaibir (1995) and Braima (1995) who
conducted some kind of discourse analysis studies in which they wanted
to find out whether instruction can enhance learners, awareness of
English cohesive devices. Yahya (2000) investigated the influence of
cohesive devices on writing properties. However, this study will
concentrate on coherence and cohesion in university students texts.
Moreover the researcher will conduct the study at three different
Sudanese universities to show if they have the same problems. The
study will also attempt to achieve the objectives and answering the
research questions.

1.7.Methdology
The methodology of this study is qualitative and quantitative. It is a
descriptive and an analytical study. The researcher will use SPSS
program for the statistical analysis of data, then there will be a textual
analysis. The materials of this study will be originally written answers
for two tests which were used by a Palestinian researcher in AlQuds
university. The researcher will use them for Sudanese students at three

9
different Sudanese universities, namely, Dongola University,AlZaiem
AlAzhary University and Omdurman Islamic University.

The subjects of the study will be the third and fourth year
English students who are majoring in English. They are divided into
three groups:

Group one: Students of English at university of Dongola, Faculty of

Education (third and fourth year).

Group two: Students of English at university of AlZaiem Al Azhary.

Faculty of Education (third and fourth years).

Group three: Students of English Omdurman Islamic University.

Faculty of Arts (third and fourth years)

The researcher’s choice of these subjects from third and fourth year
is in order to complete the sample into hundred students.

The data of the research will be collected from the students’

answers of the two tests which will be given by the researcher. The
researcher will conduct the tests in three different Sudanese universities,
then will correct these tests and analyze the results obtained.

1.8. Definition of Terms

In this study the following terms will be defined as follow :

Coherence: It refers to relationship of ideas and the ability of those

ideas to function together in order to convey the meaning. The
functioning of a text as a unified whole. (Mclinn, 1988: 15).

Cohesion: It refers to the semantic relations that exist within the text
and that qualify it as a text. It is manifested in the links that exist

10
between presupposed and presupposing items. It includes five
categories: conjunctions, reference, lexical, ellipsis and substitutions.
(Halliday and Hasan 1976:4).

Text: In this study the text refer to any written text of whatever length,
that does form a unified whole (Halliday and Hasan 1976:1).

Cohesive devices: They are defined as words, phrases or clauses, which

organize and manage stretches of discourse.

1.9. Outline of the Research

The study will consist of five chapters:

The first chapter is an introduction which includes the context of

the problem, statement of the problem, the questions of the research, the
hypotheses of the research, the objectives of the research, the
significance of the research and out line of the research.

The second chapter will review some literature relevant to the

study and methods on coherence and cohesion, give survey of cohesive
devices .

The third chapter will describe the methodology and the

procedures which will be a adopted in the study.

The fourth chapter will be data analyses, results and discussion.

The fifth chapter will present summary, conclusions,

recommendations and suggestions for further studies.

At the end there will be a list of references and appendices.

11
 Chapter Two

Literature Review
In this chapter some of the literature related to the subject of the
study is reviewed. First the concepts 'coherence' and 'cohesion' are
discussed with reference to the definitions made by some researchers.
Next, different approaches to the study of the concepts 'coherence' and
cohesion are presented and explained. Finally, previous studies on
coherence and cohesion are reviewed.

2.1. Coherence
The root of the word coherence is the verb ‘cohere’ which means
literary “to stick together” or to agree or be consistent. According to
Van Dijk (1977:93)“coherence is not a well defined notion”. The
vagueness in its definition may be related to the fact that coherence is an
interpretive process created by the reader while he is reading the text.
This indicates that the reader is the one who decides whether the text is
coherent or not. Thus, a writer always needs to predict the reader's
response to his/her text. The learner to some extent can not cope with
this task.

In writing, coherence is the relationship of ideas and the abilities

of those ideas to function together in order to convey the meaning.
Mclinn (1988:15) explains that coherence is ‘the functioning of the text
as a unified whole”. This means that if a text has been understood as one
piece of related ideas which enable the reader to reach his aim and get
the gist of it, then it is a coherent discourse.

Mathews (1990) defined coherence as the logical relation of

sentences forming a text. According to him a student may, for example,

12
produce a composition in which all the sentences are grammatically
correct, but which lack coherence .Then it can be stated that a piece of
writing is coherent when its ideas move in a smooth line without being
interrupted from beginning to end. Accordingly the coherent text must
proceed logically and smoothly through sensible ordering of the items
or ideas in the paragraph and linking the sentences with transitional
devices which lead to one coherent whole.

Moreover, coherence underlies semantic relations which enable

the reader to understand the text .Thus its importance stems from this
point and the problem of the students' writing should be investigated and
recommendations on how to teach the element of coherence in writing
should be stated.

Other theorists indicated that coherence can also be seen as an

interaction between the writer and the reader, with the written text as
mediating symbol. In this interaction the writer emerges through the
course of a writing process and reveals in a text while the realization
depends on the reader cognitive activities. Viewing coherence from this
perspective, composing and writing are no longer a distinct process.
Coherence becomes the experience of meaning fullness correlated with
successful integration during reading which the reader projects back on
the text as a quality of wholeness in meaning. Coherence then is
examined through the relationship between readers and texts.

Some linguists, Halliday and Hasan (1976:11) maintained that

discourse sentences cohere as far as their meaning is concerned. A
similar structure definition of coherence has been stated by Scinto (1977
in Yahya 2000) that there are some ways to establish coherence .First,
coherence can be created by logical cohesion, where there is match
between textual topic and the comment about it, e.g.

13
 1- John went out of the room without a word of explanation.

2- He is sitting at the table in the corner of the room.

These pairs of sentences lack coherence due to the violation of

logical connectivity with reference to the sequence of time. In other
words, John cannot be in the past (went out of the room) and at the same
time in the present (is sitting at the table). Another source of coherence
according to Scinto is lexical cohesion. On the other hand, the
explanation of textual coherence in pure structural terms do not seem to
appeal to many linguists. For instance Widdowson (1978: 59) pointed
out that it is not always necessary that the relationships between
prepositions within the same discourse be signaled linguistically. He
argued that the meaning of the text does not always exist ready- made.
i.e. it has to be worked out by the readers and hearers .He provided the
following two examples in support for his argument.

1-A:What are the police doing ?

B:They are arresting the demonstrators .

2-A:What are the police doing?

B:I have just arrived.

In example (1) there is a formal signal (they) that connects B’s

speech to A’s, there is no connection in example (2), but is still
coherent. What can be said here is that apiece of discourse can be both
cohesive and coherent,(example 1) . Coherent without being cohesive,
(example 2). From this argument it can be concluded that a lot of
discourse is left for the readers to conclude.

Morgan and Sellner (1980:483) assume that there is a great role

for the hearers’ and readers’ background knowledge play in discourse
interpretation .In criticizing Halliday and Hasan’(1976: 2) sentence:
14
 Wash and core six cooking apples put them into afire –proof dish.

According to what Morgan and Sellner assumed, the reader

background knowledge of cooking, author’s purpose, in addition to
their ability to reason and the assumption that the text is coherent .All
these factors together contribute to discourse coherence.

In this respect coherence in writing can be stated as all the ideas in

paragraph follow smoothly from one sentence to another .With
coherence , the reader has an easy time understanding the ideas that the
writer whishes to express .In other words , coherence is:

• making connection between ideas

• making meaningful connection between sentences.

• Patterning information.

2.1.1. Local coherence versus Global coherence

The term "coherence" is studied under two general categories:
local coherence and global coherence. Local coherence is defined "pair
wise relations between sentences of a textual sequence" (Van Dijk
1978). In other words, local coherence refers to the linguistic markers in
a text that show the underlying relations in the text. Local coherence is
very frequently used to refer to the micro-structure of a text. This micro-
structure of a text involves the explicit indicators of relations between
concepts and ideas in the text. Thus local coherence is achieved through
establishing relations between sentences at the surface level.

On the other hand, global coherence is defined in terms of

operations on whole sets of sentences, e.g. for the discourse as a whole
(Van Dijk 1978). In other words, global coherence refers to the
underlying relations between the propositions of a text and it is often

15
used to refer to the macro-structure of a text in the global organization
of a text and can be cued directly in the text via topic readers and topic
sentences .

2.1.2. Approaches to Coherence

This section will deal with two main approaches to coherence, the
process-oriented approach and the product-oriented approach. These
two approaches reflect various views on how coherence is achieved.

2.1.2.1. The Process-Oriented Approach to Coherence

Since the 1970s there has been a heated debate among researchers
on the above approaches in coherence. The two approaches, that is
coherence as a process and coherence as a product. The two approaches
hold different views on how coherence is achieved. The former centres
on what is unfolded as the reader interacts with the text, where as the
latter is explained in terms of features identifiable in the textual product
itself.

The researches of the process-oriented approach challenged

coherence (Carrel 1982; Tierney and Moenthal, 1983; Morgan and
Sellner, 1980). These researches affirmed that coherence is not a feature
that is embedded in a text, but instead it is a process of “Coherence-
making” on the part of the reader and writer and dependent on the
notion of shared background knowledge.

However, since the primary concerns of process-oriented theories

rest on modeling of the reading and writing process, and not with
quantitative researches, they have not supplied us with objective
analytical procedure which could enable us to distinguish, in
quantitative research studies, more coherent from less coherent texts.

16
Among these researchers are: Brown and Yule (1983)’ Carrell (1982;
1984); Crothers (1978); Morgan and Sellner (1980).

Cohesion theory has been under criticism by process-oriented

researches. Carrell (1982:480), argued that a text can be coherent but
not cohesive. She explained this by the following example(1) :

*The picnic was ruined. No one remembered to bring a corkscrew.

She explained that coherence here is achieved by the reader schema

of a picnic, not by the lexical ties of picnic and corkscrew. Although
there is an association of picnic and corkscrew in the reader’s schema, it
is undeniable that the lexical ties mentioned are at the basis of
coherence, and according to Halliday and Hasan (1976) lexical ties are
cohesive.

Various views have been put forward on how coherence may be

achieved. Van Dijk (1972) argued that readers have certain expectations
about the overall structure or “macro-structure” of texts, depending on
the genres. Carrell (1984: 162) and Speber and Wilson (1986),
advocated that coherence is dependent on relevance. Johns (1986, pp.
247-251) explained that coherence is reader-related, that is, coherence is
seen as a process where by the reader makes coherence by continually
testing the text against his expectation and that the text-based coherence
“is the text product alone, abstracted from the background knowledge
between the reader and writer”.

It is noteworthy that process-oriented approaches to coherence are

subject to a lot of short comings. They suffer from retrospective
recording (going over what has happened before) this can be subjective:
what we will see will be determined by what we expect to see.
Moreover, in the case of retrospective reporting, because of time taken
between the mental state and the reporting, data may be distorted.
17
Retrospection, however, is necessary because it is not possible for the
researcher to engage in an activity and simultaneously report on his
thought and decision. Nevertheless, the gap between the event and the
retrospection will lead to unreliable data. It is also questionable whether
the verbalization accruing in think-aloud techniques accurately reflects
the mental processes which normally underlie the problem solving tasks.

The validity of these methods could also strongly be influenced by

the effects of “the observer’s paradox” (Labov, 1972); that is, during the
data collection, the normal daily habits of subjects may be altered.

2.1.2.2. Product-Oriented approach to Coherence

The majority of studies in the three decades before the 1990s,
concentrated on discourse at the sentence level. The researchers
followed the general interest shown by theoretical linguists in sentence
grammar. Gradually some linguists shifted their emphasis from the
analysis of sentence structure to the analysis of the process by which
people use language.

Many quantitative studies using product-oriented approaches have

not dealt with intersectional aspects of text structure. Rather, they have
focused on errors in general, for example: Greenall (1980) and
Shaughnessy (1977) have concentrated, within the transformation-
generative paradigm, on syntactic features such as the sentence, T-units
and clause length and so have other researchers (e.g. Hunt, 1965, 1970,
Moller 1969; O’Hare 1973, cited in Hubbard 1989:52).

The importance of cohesion and coherence to writing quality has

preoccupied researchers for some time; they have considered the use of
cohesion in different genres of composition writing at different school
grades. Smith and Frawey (1983 in Ramaswmy, 2004) compared the use
of conjunctions in the writing of four American English genres; fiction,
18
religion, journalism and science. They found that the functions of
conjunctions are not limited to “intra-clausal functions” and that the
functions may be made clearer “through their differential distribution
over genre”.(p.19). That is, they are manifested in different modes of
texts. They further claimed that different modes of texts connect
differently. They discovered a prevalence of certain types of
conjunctions over others in some genres, but no difference in use of
coordination and subordination. They found that the cohesive use of the
hypothetical if is less frequently present in journalism and science,
where its frequency is more or less the same, than in religious discourse
(Ramaswmy p. 19).

They suggested that the types of conjunctions used in the genres

they analyzed are of vital importance because “the semantics of such
signals give us an excellent insight into the argument and narrative
structure of each type of text”. The use of “as” and “because” in the
narrative texts of their data corpus here does not indicate a certain text
structure and rhetorical component, a text generating or a text analysis
scheme. This means that the semantics of the kinds of conjunctives used
through light on the narrative structure of each type of text.

Zamel (1984) conducted a study on “conjuncts” which she defined

as “those connectives more specifically referred to in grammar as
coordinating conjunction and conjunctive adverbs or transitions”
(1984: 110). Meaning or intent can be obscured, she argued, when these
conjuncts are either absent or when their use is semantically or
syntactically inappropriate. Indeed, conjunctions signal relationships
within and between sentences and between longer units of discourse.
She affirmed that, cohesive ties, when correctly used, make obvious the
writers' line of thought. They are essential for preserving meaning. She

19
also approved that transition markers, can have more than one function
in English: some linking devices in a list do serve similar semantic
functions, but carry different grammatical weight. For example a word
like since can be used as transition marker signaling both time and cause
as in the following two sentences :

• Since we arrived in Pretoria last Monday, it has been raining.

(Since signals time).

• Since he did not care for the poor, he lost election (Since signals
cause).

The above examples illustrate the importance of knowledge of the

different roles and of semantic of conjunctives in different context.

Emphasis on the importance of the cohesive device is carried out in

the claim of kuo (1995 in Ramaswmy), that cohesive ties in a sentence
play a central role in the thematic development of a text and that any
serious study in cohesion and coherence lies not in just contrasting
coherence and cohesion, but in exploring the relation between them. He
recognizes the importance of cohesion in terms of the interpretation and
communicative purpose of a text in making semantic relations logical.
He concluded that sentences which are functionally more important to
the thematic development to the text contain more cohesive ties with
other sentences less important functionally.

Beene (1985) had a view that; coherence in students’ written text is

achieved through content organization, focus, functionality of
connectives, topic development and appropriateness of grammatical
structures.

He also underlined the point that cohesive links in his study were in
appropriately, and at times redundantly, used.

20
 Using Halliday, and Hasan’s model in his study of cohesion and
coherence, Khalil (1989 in Atieh, 2006) investigated the relationship
between cohesion and coherence in 20 compositions in Arab EFL
students, college writing. The relationship of cohesion and coherence
was also tested by the use of multiple correlation statistics. A weak
correlation was found (r=0.18) between the number of cohesive ties and
the coherence score of the text. This study occurs with an earlier one
such as Carrell (1980: 486) that a text may be cohesive but not coherent
and that cohesion is just one of the many components contributing to
coherence.

2.2. Cohesion
The notion of cohesion is the semantic relationships that exist
within the text and which qualifies it as a text .It includes five
categories: conjunctions, reference, lexical, ellipsis and substitution
(Halliday and Hasan 1976:4)

Accordingly, cohesion is the network of lexical and grammatical

relation that organizes and creates a text. This relation is considered to
be a surface relation which connect words or expressions that we see or
hear.

In another attempt to clarify the notion of cohesion Widdowson

(1987:26) stated ,

“The notion of cohesion, then refers to the way

sentences and parts of sentences combine so as to ensure
that there is a prepositional development”

This definition explains that cohesion is a achieved by certain

tools which we can refer to as cohesive devices.

21
 Moreover, Mathews etal (1990) defined cohesion as” the overt
relation of one sentence to another through the use of reference devices
and logical connectors”.

According to them, student may, for example, produce a

composition in which all the sentences are grammatically correct, but
which lack coherence. So that in apiece of writing the ideas should
move in a smooth line through the ordering of ideas in the paragraph
and linking the sentences with transitional devices.

In other words, cohesion is the connectivity on the surface or

sentential level and coherence is the connectivity in terms of content and
organization and on a broader level such as paragraph or discourse level.
In (1998:2).

On the other hand, there may be no use of cohesive ties in a text

but it may be still coherent .It seems that cohesion is controversial
concept in writing. There is a dispute on the role cohesion plays in
textual coherence.

Generally, there are two types of cohesion: sentence cohesion and

discourse cohesion. Where the former category is concerned, Crystal
(1997) points out that, cohesion is a property of words that constitute a
unit, within a sentence or individually into which no other word can be
inserted .This can be illustrated by the case of superlative form “the
most important” where no word is permitted between “the” and “most”
or between ”most "and “important” without violating the well
formedness of the phrase. Another kind of cohesion that takes place
within the sentence is reported by Halliday and Hasan (1976:7-8). They
point out that in a sentence such as :

• If you happened to meet the admiral, don't tell him his ship's gone
down.
22
 The cohesion effect given rise by the pronoun 'him' and 'his' attracts
'less notice within a sentence because of cohesive strength of
grammatical structure'. Thus since the sentence hangs together
already, the cohesion is not needed in order to make it hang together.

2.2.1.Cohesive Devices
According to some linguists, e.g. Brostoff (1981 in Younis
1999:27) cohesion is one of the important features of discourse that
accounts for texts readability. According to Zamel (1983:22) :

“cohesive devices are crucial in writing for they

turn separate clauses ,sentences, and paragraphs into
connected prose, signaling the relationships between
ideas, and making obvious the thread of meaning the
writer is trying to communicate”

In their study of cohesion in English, Halliday and Hasan (1976)

defined cohesion as what occurs when the interpretation of some
element in the discourse is dependent on that of another.

In the same sense coherence has been defined as the logical

relation of sentences forming the text. (Mathews and Cranmer, 1990).
As for cohesion they assumed that it is the overt relation of one
sentence to another through the use of references device, and logical
connectors (Matthews etal, 1990)

Kuehner and Reque (1987 inYounis 1999:27)) believed that when

apiece of writing is coherent, its ideas move in a smooth, uninterrupted
line from beginning to end. Accordingly, coherent text must proceed
logically and smoothly through sensible ordering of the items or ideas in
the paragraph and linking the sentences with transitional devices so that

23
they follow smoothly from one idea to the next, uniting the paragraph
into one coherent whole.

Giving an example of a paragraph , Allen and Park1969( in

Younis ,1999) stated that the writer has overlooked the principle of
coherence ,that is, he has not connected his sentences with good
transitional devices, so that they relate not only to his thesis
statement( unity)but also relate directly to each other.

Moreover, Smith and Liedich (1968) believe that, the sentences of

a coherent paragraph must not only adequately develop a controlling
idea, they must link together smoothly via logical sequences and links
between them.

According to Halliday and Hasan(1976) cohesive relation is set

up only if the same word or a word related to it has occurred
previously. Realizing the function of cohesive in constructing
discourse ,they assert that:

“by its role providing texture cohesion helps to

create text”.(p.30)

Identifying features that combine to make up textual

components, Halliday and Hasan identified five types of cohesion:
reference cohesion, substitution cohesion, ellipses, lexical cohesion and
conjunctive cohesion.

2.2.1.1 Reference cohesion

Reference cohesion constitute “terms” in English language
which,''instead of being interpreted semantically in their own right,
make reference to something else for their interpretation”.(Halliday and
Hasan, 1976:31).

According to Halliday (1985) reference has three types:

24
 a- a particular or circumstantial element introduced at one place in
the text can be taken as a reference point for something that
follows. It is an exphoric relation ,that is pointing outwards. It is
possible to have anaphoric relation in which such items pointing
backwards to the preceding text. Let us consider the example
below:

• You cannot see the headmaster now. He is interviewing a

teacher.

He in the above example is a reference cohesion tie because it shares

the same referent as, and refers back to, the headmaster.

*The woman took up a cup of tea after she woke up.

She here is a reference cohesive tie ,sharing the same referent as the
woman.

b- the second type is demonstrative like ,this, that, there, those, here.
They may be either exphoric or anaphoric.

c- the third type is comparative reference which setup a relation of

contrast. Any expression such as, the same, another, similar and related
adverbs such as likewise, equally presume some standard of reference in
the preceding text. However, comparative reference can be used
cataphorically.

2.2.1.2.Ellipsis and substitution

The term ellipsis refers to the absence of a word, phrase or a

clause which is understood. Ellipsis contributes to the semantic structure
of the discourse by setting up lexicogrammatical relationship.

A relationship in wording rather than directly in meaning. On the other

hand substitution serves as a place holding device , showing where

25
something has been omitted and what its grammatical function would
be. However, its is worth mentioning that here are some grammatical
environments in which only ellipsis is possible, some in which only
substitution is possible such as *I prefer the other (one) which allow for
either . In the case of ellipsis cohesion, there are three types, depending
on the syntactic category of the presupposed elements.

2.2.1.2.1Nominal ellipsis

Nominal ellipsis occurs when a noun or noun phrase is

presupposed, as shown below:

These are my two dogs. I used to have four.

The word dog has been omitted and can easily be understood or
recovered from the context.

2.2.1.2.2 Verbal ellipsis

Verbal ellipses occurs where a verb or verb phrase is presupposed ,as in:

Teacher: Have you done the homework?

John: yes ,I have.

John’s answer is elliptical in the sense that done the homework is

understood.

2.2.1.2.3Clausal ellipsis

Clausal ellipsis occurs when both a noun or noun phrase and a

verb or at least part of a verb phrase, is omitted .It is mostly seen in
dialogue in yes/no questions, as in the example below:

Mary: Are you going to buy new dress for my birthday?

Mother: Yes

26
 Here the mother is affirming the entire clause you are going to buy
anew dress for my birthday.

The whole clause may often be omitted, as in:

Henry: What grade did you get for French?

Paul: B

Since the whole clause has been omitted, Paul’s answer constitutes a
clausal ellipsis and not nominal or verbal ellipses.

2.2.1.3. Conjunctive cohesion

Halliday (1985) defines this type of cohesion as a clause or
clause complex, or some longer stretch of text, may be related to what
follows it by one or other of a specific set of semantic relations.

Conjunctive cohesion differs from the other types mentioned

above in that it does not need a specifiable element in a situational
context or text for its interpretation .It has its own intrinsic meaning. As
Halliday and Hasan (1976:226) point out “conjunctive elements are
cohesive not in themselves but indirectly ,by virtue of their specific
meanings, they are not primarily devices for reaching out into the
preceding (or following) text, but they express certain meanings which
presuppose the presence of other components in the discourse’. For
example:

He took a cup of coffee after he woke up .

The word ‘after’ suggest a sequence, signaling that what is

expressed in the first clause followed what is expressed in the second
one.

Furthermore, words such as hence and so indicate that there is

preceding segment of text presenting a cause or reason ,and a

27
following segment a result .In other words the relation between the two
segments will be one of reason –result. Unlike reference ,substitution
and ellipsis cohesion ties which are meant to signal only one phoric
relation at a time (with the exception of a pronoun ,which can act in
anaphoric ,cataphoric, or exphoric reference, depending on the text in
which it appears), conjunctions “open in the directions at the same time
forward to where the writer intends to go and backward to where he has
been” (Gallo&Risik,1973 cited in Lieber, 1983:130). The use of
conjunction contributes to cohesion and teachers often focus on these
devices in writing lessons ,but students may misuse or over use these
cohesive devices(Friend 1990).One major source of coherence drives
from the relationship of ideas. To make sense of a text, the reader need
to understand the connection between the parts. One way writers help
the reader to do this is to make explicit signals of the type of relations
between parts one type of signals is conjunction.

2.2.1.4. Lexical cohesion

According to Halliday (1985) lexical cohesion comes about
through the selection of items that are related in some way to those that
have gone before .This as Halliday states, may take the form of word
repetition; or choice of a word related in some way to previous one-
either semantically in case of the relation of synonymous sense, or
collocation ally when the relation is based on a particular association
known as co-occurrence tendency. Nevertheless, cohesive devices do
their job within intesentential, intrasentential relation, as well as
between paragraphs as paragraphs connectors not sentence connector,
Hoey (1985) and Bander (1985).

28
 *At last she crawled over the swaying floor to her
bed, and lay down upon it, and Toto followed and lay
down beside her. (here lay down is repeated).

Lexical cohesion is the final type of cohesion dealt with in

Halliday and Hasan(1976).Unlike references,ellipsis,subistitution and
conjunction, lexical cohesion is not associated with any special
syntactic class of elements. It is there fore the most open-ended and
least adequately defined of the five kinds. In lexical patterning,
successive sentences can be expected to exhibit some relationships
through their vocabulary.

For example:

1- Through repetition of a word or a phrase.

e.g. There was a large mushroom growing near her, about the same
height as herself; and when she had looked under it ,it occurred to
her that she might as well look and see what was on the top of it. She
stretched herself up on tiptoe, and deeped over the edge of the
mushroom.

In this example there is repetition: mushroom refers back to

mushroom.

2- Synonymy : words of almost the same meaning. e.g. commonly,

popularly.e.g. Accordingly I took leave ,and turned to the ascent of the
peak. The climb is perfectly easy.

In this example climb refers back to ascent of which it is synonym.

3- Antonym (the relation of semantic contrast, e.g. high, low).

4- Hyponymy (the semantic relation between amore general

expression and related specific relations)

29
 e.g. Henry's bought himself anew Jaguar. He nearly practically
lives in the car.

Here car refers back to Jaguar ;and car is super ordinate of car.

5- Collocation(words which tend to occur with one another in

certain contents, e.g. education, classroom, class and so on.

It can be concluded that, cohesion refers to linguistic links

between sentences that distinguishes them from random collection of
sentences. Such links demonstrate the relationship between the ideas
contained in these sentences. Thus a paragraph is made up of sentences
that are well-linked is said to be cohesive. So cohesion is important
because it ensures that the written text flows smoothly. Moreover, it
enhances clarity as the reader is able to follow the development of ideas
in a text more easily.

2.3. Linguistic Conceptions of Coherence and

Cohesion
According to the linguistic interpretation of coherence, which can be
referred to as text-based coherence, it is defined in terms of the formal
properties of the text.

There are several different approaches can be categorized

according to the features they focus on in the text that create coherence:
textual, pragmatic, communicative, information and cognitive
perspectives.

2.3.1 Textual perspective

Linguistic studies of coherence became popular with the
publication of Halliday and Hasan's Cohesion in English (1976) . They
were the first researchers to present a systematic analysis of cohesion

30
from a textual perspective. According to Halliday and Hasan(1976:229),
cohesion is:

“a semantic concept referring to relations of

meaning that exist within the text and that defines it as
continuity that exists between one part of the text and
another” .

In other words, cohesion occurs if an element in the discourse can

be interpreted depending on the interpretation of another element and
they argue that cohesion is a factor that makes a text and distinguishes it
from a non text.

In their study of cohesion, they present a taxonomy of cohesive

ties such as reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical
cohesion. According to Halliday and Hasan, reference cohesion occurs
when one element in a text points to another for its interpretation, as
shown in example (1) with they.

1- a. Three blind mice, three blind mice.

See how they run see how they run!!

Substitution cohesion occurs when an item is used instead of a

particular item to avoid repetition as shown in example with one:

2- a. My axe is too blunt. I must get a sharper one.

Ellipsis cohesion occurs when there is substitution by zero. That

is in ellipsis, the reference is to sentences clauses etc whose structure is
such as to presuppose some preceding item, which then serve as the
source of the missing information (Halliday and Hasan, 1976 :143). In
the example (3) below, brought is left out in the second clause.

3- John brought some carnations, and Catherina some sweet peas.

31
 Halliday and Hasan (1976) categorize conjunctive cohesion into
five: additive, adversative, causal, temporal and continuative and the last
class of cohesive ties is lexical cohesion which, Halliday and Hasan
state, depends on some patterned occurrence of lexical items and
reiteration and collocation of words within the text establish cohesive
ties. Reiteration may be of the same word, e.g.: pie. pie; of a synonym,
e.g.: ape-monkey; or of a super ordinate, e.g.: blackbird… bird.
Collocational cohesion can be seen in the following pairs of examples:
king.. queen, dish… eat.

After Halliday and Hasan (1976) some other researchers also

focused on cohesion and coherence from a textual perspective. For
instance, Hoey (1991) examined how lexical cohesive features combine
to recognize a text and according to him, cohesion facilitates coherence.
Among the cohesive ties that facilitate coherence is lexical repetition
which creates cohesive net works in a text.

Much in the same way Grabe and Kaplan (1996,p.70) in their

discussion of contribution of linguistic features to the text coherence
argue that although coherence is more than cohesion, with the help of
cohesive ties, writers guide the readers to achieve a coherent
interpretation of the text. Therefore, linguistic signals and markers of
cohesion help to establish a coherent understanding of a text. They
reject the contrary idea by saying that the researches in cognitive
psychology and educational psychology on text comprehension clearly
does not support the arbitrariness of structural signaling in text".

Still another study that focuses on coherence from textual

perspective is carried out by Fahnestock (1983:206). Fahnestock holds
that coherence in written discourse depends on the semantic relationship
between clauses and can be established with out any transition word,

32
which is a fundamental principle of coherence . Some of these possible
relations that can exist between sentences are sequencer, restatement,
exemplification, conclusion, similarity, addition, which form the list of
relations that show the expected or continuative connections between
sentences. Discontinuative relations are often signaled by an explicit
transition word to help a reader a cross an un expected synapse or turn
in the meaning .Moreover, some of these are replacement, exception,
concession, contrast, and alternation. Fahnestock concludes that explicit
linkages are not enough to create coherence in a text but the semantic
relation between the sentences should be present.

2.3.2. Pragmatic perspective

One of the researchers who studied coherence from a pragmatic
perspective is Widdowson (1978). According to Widdowson,
prepositional and illocutionary developments lead to cohesion and
coherence in a text and the speaker has to choose sentences appropriate
for the context paying attention to what the listener wants to know.
Widdowson (1978 ) refers to cohesion as the overt links between
propositions where as he refers to coherence as the relationship between
illocutionary acts as in the following example:

A: What are the police doing?

B: I have just arrived.

Although there is no overt link between the utterances, the

dialogue is coherent in the sense that ( B's ) remark can be interpreted as
an explanation for his inability to answer A's question therefore, (B)is
performing an illocutionary act.

Widdowson perceives reading as a dialogue between the reader

and the writer and the writer and successful interaction requires the

33
reader to understand the illocutionary intention of the writer such as
persuasion, and suggestion. In other words, writing will be structured to
communicate writer's intentions and purposed with in certain accepted
principles and the reader's task is to understand these intentions and
purposes.

Schiffrin (1987) studied coherence from a communicative

perspective and claims that a hearer interprets the meaning of a text by
using the propositional connections underlying the utterance. There fore,
cohesive devices help the reader to find the meaning underlying the
surface utterance. Schiffrin 1987:22 in Atieh 2006) holds:

"Coherence, then, would depend on a speaker's

successful integration of different verbal and non
verbal devices to situate a message in an interpretive
frame, and a hearer's corresponding synthetic ability to
respond to such cues as a totality in order to interpret
that message"

Green 1989 I Atieh 2006) also states that coherence is established

through the reader's understanding of the writer's cohesive plan. There
fore, the writer acts estimating the beliefs and the infringing ability of
the reader. In other words, coherence derives from attributing a
communicative intention to writing therefore, these researchers also
made a connection between utterance interpretation and coherence.

According to Sperber and Wilson (1986:125) coherence is

interpreted from a pragmatic perspective in the light of theory of
relevance. This theory emphasizes the fact that human beings seek
relevance in texts and if relevance is found the text is received as
coherent. A reader compares the text to the other information and this
comparison results in what (Grabe and Kaplan 1996:68) state as:
34
 "Creation of new information, the contradiction of old
information, and for the confirmation of one's commitment concerning
something"

According to this theory, an assumption is stated by Sperber and

Wilson (1996:68) that:

"In a context to the extent that its contextual effects in this context
is large and in a context to the extent that the effort required to process it
this context is small"

The following example from Blakemore (2002:.169) illustrates how

a single utterance can be interpreted in different ways:

A: What did Sue say, then?

B: Our train is leaving in thirty seconds.

In this example, (B's) utterance has two interpretations. Blake

more states that a coherent interpretation is that( B) is reporting what
Sue said and is answering A's question but an incoherent interpretation
is also possible in which B is telling A that their train is leaving in thirty
seconds and, thus, is not answering A's question. Blakemore raises a
question at this point: what context does B intended the hearer to
interpret in?.

According to a coherence approach, Blakemore states, the answer

is "what ever context yield a coherent interpretation is possible.
However in natural discourse, the second interpretation is equally
possible and acceptable. According to relevance theory, the hearer will
choose an interpretation of the utterance that is consistent with the
principle of relevance, that is the hearer will interpret the utterance as
stated by Blakemore (2000:169)

35
 "In the context that yields an optimally relevant
interpretation"

Therefore, the incoherent interpretation of (B's) utterance might

itself trigger an immediately accessible context which yields cognitive
effects which will not be derivable for very much longer" the train will
not wait, however, (A) and (B) can always discuss what Sue said later
(for example on the train).

2.3.3. Information perspective

According to researchers who studied coherence and cohesion as
information management process, the speaker has to decide how much
of content the hearer can take in and has to organize information
accordingly.

Jin (1998,p.17) states that the speaker arranges information in

units known as "information blocks. Each block has a centre where new
information is presented. For example Grimes in Jin 1998,p.18), words
in capital letters (used for words that are intentionally prominent) show
the centre of information and convey new information:

THIS /is the first TIME/ we have EVER / DONE anything like
this.

In this Grimes claims that cohesion is the result of grouping of

information into larger units and as a result of this grouping, coherence
can be achieved.

Lovejoy’s study in Jin (1998:18) shows that applying concepts

such as theme-rheme, topic – comment, given – new, marked.
Unmarked and information focus helps the writer manage information.
According to Lovejoy,

36
 "theme is the point of departure for the presentation
of information"

and, reheme

"constitutes the information the writer wishes to

impart about the there"

And topic- comment and given - new work in similar way. In

other words, these concepts are used to describe how clauses are
organized to present information.

In a given - new analysis, given is the information that has been

mentioned as illustrated in the following example taken from Grabe
and Kaplan(1996:50)

Most people realize that wolves have to kill dear,

moose Caribbean, elk and other large animals to
survive. The predator live in family groups called packs
usually containing 6-12 members and it takes a lot of
meat to feed them. The pack is well organized…

"Most people" at the beginning of the first sentence as an

indefinite general noun phrase indicates that new information will
follow which is not likely to be related to the topic in the first sentence.
In the second sentence ‘padators’ which is signaled by the definite
article “the” refers back to wolves. “Pack” in this sentence is introduced
as new information and then is defined. In the next sentence, however,
"pack" becomes part of the given information signaled by the definite
article “the”.

Many of the studies on topic development and topical relations

are based on the Prague school's theory of functional sentence
perspective (FSP), initially developed by Mathesius (1928) and later by

37
Firbas (1964,1974,1986) in Frodesen, (1991:18). Vande in Grabe and
Kaplan (1996:49) describes the orientation of the people who developed
this theory as follows:

"As their name indicates, functional sentence

perspectivist take a functional approach to language …
they ……. Investigate what language does, how people
use it in various ways to achieve various purposed. Thus
their focus is primarily on connected texts, not on
isolated or randomly connected sentences, since people
rarely use the latter for communicative purposes’’.

According to this theory, Walelign asserts that, each meaningful

utterance springs from a topic which serves as the point of departure for
the discussion and these topics are developed in such a way that they are
linked to the general message of text. This theory studies the cohesive
ties syntactically and semantically and the function of these cohesive
devices in the discourse. This theory divides the sentence into two parts:
theme, which is defined as what the speaker is talking about and rheme
which is defined as what is being said about the theme. Firbas in
Fordesen, (1991:18) states that theme presents old information and new
information, rheme is conveyed through the theme. In addition while
theme does not have a strong communicative function, rheme advances
the communication.

Lauttamatti (1978) in describing coherence he developed another

type of analysis. He attempted to examine the development of discourse
topics through sequences of subtopics that are ordered hierarchically.
According to Lauttamatti, subtopics can be ordered in different ways
such as parallel progression. Parallel progression occurs when the theme
of a sentence. Sequential progression refers to the progression where the

38
theme of a sentence. Extended parallel progression, on the other hand,
occurs when a parallel is interrupted by a sequential progression.
Lauttamatti applies her analysis to written discourse and she shows that
certain patterns of topical progression may be more readable than others.
For instance, texts with fewer competing subtopics fewer complex
sequential progression (A-B, B-C, C-D) and more series of parallel topic
progressions (A-B, A-C, A-D) appear to be more readable (Lauttamatti
in Grabe and Kaplan 1996:52.)

Other studies show that higher ranked essays have more

sequential topics (Schneider and Connor in Frodeson, 1991:23). As
there have been different results, the researchers recommended further
studies on different kind of progressions.

2.3.4. Cognitive perspective

Studying coherence from cognitive perspective has been the
concern of two researchers, Gernsbacher (1990) and Givon (1995).
According to Givon (1995:64). Text comprehension is achieved through
structural mental representation of the text. Givon takes coherence as
grouping and claims that a mentally–represented text has some
sequential hierarchic network structure. Therefore, one should have
some nodes be connected to some other nodes within the mental text
Structure. If the nodes has more connections, it becomes easier to access
that node. This text has two directions: anaphoric and cataphoric.
Anaphoric grounding occurs when new information is connected to
some exiting mental representation of the text or of other mental
entities. On the other hand, cataphoric grounding involves clues the
speaker gives the hearer at a particularly in terms of thematic topic
importance Givon in Jin(1998: P.21). The following examples illustrate
two types of grounding:

39
 a- The man told you about is not here yet.

b- The man, who had no shoes on, came

into our office.

c - A man who no shoes on came into our

office.

When the speaker utters the example (a), she assumes that the event
in the relative clause is mentally accessible to the hearer because the
proposition in the relative clause is shared by the speaker and the hearer.
Moreover, Givon states that this mentally activated event anaphorically
tracks the head noun referent and limits its domain of reference for the
hearer.

However, the use of non-restrictive relative clause in example (b)

gives some parenthetical information rather than conveying any shared
proposition or limiting the domain of reference of the head noun "the
man". For example (c), there is a restrictive relative clause with an
indefinite head noun "a man" therefore, the relative clause function as a
descriptive clause introducing new information. In both examples (b)
and (c), the head nouns are cataphorically tied to the relative clause. In
order to develop a coherent conversation, the speaker has to use
anaphoric grounding.

Similarly Chafe in Jain (1998:25) focuses on the importance of

cognitive perspective to coherence and states that coherence is achieved
through smooth flow of information from the speaker to the listener.
According to Chafe, this flow of information takes place if active
information in both the speaker's and the listener's minds is shared by
both sides and if new and semi active information in the listener's
consciousness is activated. Therefore, Chafe claims that coherence can

40
be achieved through information flow from given to new and through
the development of topics and subtopics.

Other researchers who have view point to explain discourse

coherence from a cognitive perspective are (Sanders and Noordman
2000), they call it "coherence relations". They maintain that according to
many theories of discourse coherence, coherence relations explain the
coherence in cognitive text processing. (Hobbs, 1979; Mann and
Thompson, 1987; Sanders and Noordman, 1992, 1993 in Sanders
Noordman(2000:38). Coherence relations according to Sanders and
Noordman, are "meaning relations that connect two text segments" and
some examples for these relations are cause-consequence, list and
problem-solution. Moreover, these relations can be made explicit with
the use of linguistic markers, some researchers and investigated whether
the type of coherence relations has any role on text processing and
whether linguistic marking of these relations influences processing.
Moreover, they found that linguistic markers like connectives guide the
reader to words a coherent text representation.

2.4. Non-linguistic conceptions of coherence and

cohesion
While linguistic or textual properties of texts contribute to
coherence in the written discourse, there are many researchers who have
been increasingly concerned with non-linguistic elements that contribute
to coherence. In this view, coherence is perceived as not a text – bound
feature but as a feature that is achieved through some non-linguistic
elements outside the written discourse. Non-linguistic conceptions of

41
coherence can be examined from the perspective of reader and writer
relationship.

2.4.1. The writer and the reader

Traxler and Gernsbacher (199:215-237) argue that writers often
fail to convey their intended messages. One way to achieve successful
communication in the written discourse for the writers is to form mental
representations of the ideas the writer wants to convey of the text as it is
written and of their readers as they will build the text. The writers must
compare their own mental representations of ideas they want to convey
with the reader's representations of the text. If these two representations
do not match, the writer must revise the text until they match.

Taxler and Gernbacher maintain that when the writers build

mental representations of how the reader will interpret the text, they can
use some sources such as reader's world knowledge, linguistic
conventions and the reader's intellectual sophistications. Similarly,
Rosenblatt in Frodesen (1991:30) is concerned with the reader and the
writer interactions and characterizes the idea that each participant
involved in the process "conditions and is conditional by the others".
According to Rosenblatt, the writer constantly transacts with the
environment which the reader is a part of. Moreover, the writer has two
roles in the text production. First, the writer evaluates the text in terms
of its matching his/her intentions in creating the text. In addition to this,
the writer must consider the text through the eyes of the reader so that
the reader can interpret the text appropriately being aware of the writer's
intentions. However, since the writer and the reader transact through the
text, there may be sometimes occur mismatches between the writer's in
tensions and the reader's interpretations, which cause the reader to
evaluate the text as incoherent.

42
 Much in the same way, some other studies also emphasize the
importance of the writer's forming a mental representation of the reader
interpretation of the text (Booth, 1970; Kroll, 1978; Sommers, 1980;
1981; Ede, 1984; Hayes and Flower 1986). All of these studies have
argued that in order to communicate effectively, writers must consider
their audience. These studies have relate very much to the principles of
process approach to writing because in this approach, particularly in the
revising and rewriting stages, the writer has to consider how the reader
will be affected by what the writer says.

2.4.2 Schema theory

According to all researchers, a text becomes meaningful when a
reader interacts with the text. In the interactive approach to reading,
coherence is reader-centered. A text is coherent if there is a successful
interaction between the information presented in the text and the reader's
Schema to or stored knowledge concerning the text structure and the
information presented. Celce- Murcia and Olishtine (2000, P.126) define
Schemata as:

"Frames of re-reference that readers possess,

structures of the world and reality in the reader's
minds, which enable them to develop Scenarios to
be projected into events predicted as part of the
interpretation process"

If the reader's Schema matches the text, the text is found to be

meaningful, and so is coherent. We can say that coherence in the text
depends on the match between the reader Schemata with the Schemata
presented by the writer in the text.

In conclusion, the role of considering the reader and

following some theoretical constructs for the text to be interpreted as
43
coherent is what many students who write these texts need to be aware
of. This may lead them to concentrate more in producing coherent and
cohesive texts. Haliday and Hasan(1976)

To conclude, we can say that coherence differs from cohesion, but

they are complementary. In this sense, coherence is known among
linguists as something that deals with the understandability and the
functioning of the text as a unified whole. Therefore the importance of
coherence stems from the fact that when it is absent, ideas become very
difficult, if not impossible to be understood by the reader. Cohesion on
the other hand refers to something more specific in the text. It is the
mechanics in the text , including cohesive ties and other elements that
bind the text together.

2.5. Review of Pervious &Related Studies

It has been shown that cohesion plays a role in discourse coherence.
Some studies showed empirically that students’ awareness of English
cohesive devices often correlates with discourse coherence. In this
section, the discussion will be posed upon the studies that were
concerned with coherence and cohesion in the writings of EFL learners
and particularly with the availability of certain factors that cause texts to
be coherent or incoherent, cohesive or not. Through this survey, many
findings were obtained and certain kinds of relations between the two
concepts were discovered.

Research on coherence and cohesion in writing has evolved in

recent years and the majority of research studies are text-based and
quantitative in nature.

44
 Lautamatti.L (1978) conducted a study on Some Observations on
Coherence and Cohesion in Simplified Texts". He analyzed several
simplified texts. He found that simplification affects the nature of the
textual coherence and cohesion. He also found that this simplification
lead to the inconsistent variance in conjunction and the decrease of
modality markers. He came out with the conclusion that, the complexity
of the texts' devices led the reader to a more serious processing of
information to get the meaning which might be related to extra-textual
phenomenon.

Irwin,Judth (1979) conducted a study entitled' Cohesion and

Comprehension" . He investigated how mature readers make use of
cohesion in text. The results of this study showed that increasing the
numbers of cohesive ties can improve readers' comprehension. Irwin
designed two versions of a passage (differing in the number of cohesive
ties) and then used reading time and recall as a measure of
comprehension. In terms of both measures, the version with more
cohesive ties produced significantly better comprehension.

Pritchard.R.G. (1980) in her research 'A study of Cohesion

Devices in the Good and Poor Compositions of Eleventh Graders". She
investigated cohesive devices as an index of writing quality in
connection with good and poor compositions written by eleventh
graders. She specifically, studied the occurrence of redundant repetition
in the students’ writing. Her study showed that poor writing was
characterized by proportionately more cohesive devices of all types i.e.
writing problems were caused by over use and unsuccessful use of
cohesive devices.

Tierney.Rand Mosenthal.J (1981) conducted another studyon

'Cohesion and Textual Coherence'. They examined whether the cohesive

45
ties, which were used to measure and evaluate text cohesion, have an
effect on the quality of the produced price of writing or not. For this
purpose, they asked twelve students of twelfth grade to write about
certain topics. Those twelve students were then divided into two groups;
the first was composed of those who were familiar with the topics, while
the second group consisted of the other students who were unfamiliar
with such topics. Using an ANOVA test, after the analysis of each text,
they determined the cohesive patterning. Results proved that familiarity
of the topic had no significant effect on cohesion. After that, the essays
were rated and given ranks according to their level of coherence in order
to be compared with ordering texts according to cohesive analysis.

Results of this comparison showed that there was no relation

between the coherence ranking and the cohesive patterning. An
additional analysis of cohesive ties showed no significant relation
between specific types if cohesive patterning and coherence. Finally
they made a conclusion that there was no direct relationship of text
cohesion, as stated by Halliday and Hasan (1976) to the coherence of the
text.

Ching.R (1983) in his study 'Reading Development and Cohesion'

used Halliday and Hasans’ (1976) taxonomy, examined three kinds of
cohesion, co-reference (anaphoric reference), conjoining (and so) and
coextensions (lexical cohesion). Subjects of the study were (184) eight-
years old, (142) eleven- years old and (68) fourteen- years old. In this
study, subjects were required to complete the cohesive ties in a cloze-
procedure task depending in a rational stating that the extent to which
readers succeed in this task is determined by the amount of their
reception of words that the writers use. The results indicated that older
students were more successful than young students in identifying the

46
missing cohesive devices, also they produced a wider range of word
choices.

Leinone, Davies (1984) in Ramasawmy,N. (2004) undertook

analysis of 38 Finish teenagers EL2 composition of around 150 words
each in length .She found these writers to be parsimonious in their use
of conjunctive type of markers ,a type elsewhere referred to as logical
connectors. To a lesser degree they tended also to under exploit the
ellipsis and substitution types. In short her claim is that most of the
cohesion errors are those of omission. On the other hand, the Finns
made extensive at times excessive use of lexical cohesion. In one eight
sentence essay entitled ‘Why I would like to live in a big city’ the
writer used the word city no fewer than 13 times. Apart from over –and
under use of certain types, there was also miss selection of unsuitable
markers, the effect being to render the text, unstable, inefficient and
ineffective.

Conner.U (1984) conducted a study entitled 'A study of Cohesion

and Coherence in English as a Second Language Students' Writing'. She
examined coherence and cohesion in ESL learners writing as compared
with the writing of native English speakers. She adopted Halliday and
Hasan’s (1976) cohesion theory. Her study showed that to be cohesive,
an ESL article does not need to be coherent. Furthermore, cohesion
density is not found to be a discriminating factor between native
speakers and ESL writers.

Harnett.C.G. (1986) in his study "static and Dynamic Cohesion''

explained the effectiveness of the cohesive devices in essays written by
writer – who is defined by him as some one who enters college without
traditional skills needed for success in customary introductory course in
English composition. He concluded that his subjects seemed to be aware

47
of the power and importance of cohesive devices, although they failed to
use them effectively.

Both Pritchard (1980) and Harnett’s (1986) studies supported the

claim that cohesive devices depending on subjects awareness of them.
The present raises the same claim that, to use cohesive devices in the
right way , the learners should be aware of them. Yet these researchers
suggested that cohesion analysis might provide methods of explaining
some of the differences between good and poor writing. So in their
study, Witt and Faigely asserted that poorer writers used fewer types of
conjunctive, and fewer third-person pronouns. Poorer writers also do not
use lexical collection to extend and refine meanings as did better
writers.

Hubbard.E.H.(1989) in his study ' Reference cohesion,

Conjunctive cohesion and Rational coherence in Students' Academic
writings' reported his study of cohesion errors in the academic writing
of EL2 students in South Africa. Ellipsis errors were very rare and most
of the cohesion errors in the corpus involved the Reference and
conjunctive types. Here are example of errors in Reference cohesion
marking:-

*Samneric insist that there is a beast. Jack being

controlled by [*this fear]he……..

There is no obvious referent of‘ this fear’

Simon is also a Christ like figure. We see [it] in

the way, he gave his food Piggy’. It’ is a miss election
where’ this’ is called f.

Matalene.C (1992) assessed six rhetorical problems in essays

written by students at the higher college for teachers certification. These

48
problems involved the concluding statement unity, organization,
cohesion, coherence, in addition to reader orientation and clarity. The
study revealed that coherence according to its difficulty was ranked
second.

That is, written texts were poorly coherent and the mode of writing
was aural instead of visual. This was due to the first language
interference, students’ in ability to stay with the initial ideas and bad or
wrong choice of lexis.

Cohesion, on the other part, came forth according to its difficulty,

implying that cohesion with in paragraphs was poorly accomplished
through the use of cohesive ties more than any other devices. This tie-
use was referred to the instructor’s constant effect as he continuously
explained the use and importance of discourse markers to make the text
coherent. It was also due to the nature of these cohesive ties since they
are easy to be classified and used. Generally speaking, cohesion lack in
texts was found to be the cohesive ties, the overuse of “and” as a
connector and the wrong reference were the most important to those
factor. This is the same problem the researcher will investigate in the
present study .

Giabir.D. (1995)

Investigated 'The foreign language learners’ knowledge of cohesive

devices and the contribution of the syllabus to develop the students’
knowledge of cohesive devices'. The subjects of his study were 60
Sudanese English foreign language, second and fourth year at university
of Khartoum, Faculty of Arts. English Department. The data were
collected by means of two tests designed to examine the students'
competence at specific areas in writing. Test (1) was designed to explore
49
the students’ knowledge of cohesive devices. It sought to find out to
what extent the students were aware of manipulating references, ellipsis,
conjunction and lexical cohesion beyond the sentence level. Test (2) was
designed to assess the competence of the subjects in coherence and
cohesion. The results showed that no statistical significant difference
was found between the performance of the two groups of students,
which means that fourth year students did not benefit from the courses
in cohesion and coherence they attended and that the syllabus taught at
the Department of English has little contribution to the students
knowledge of cohesive devices. It was also observed that the students
of the two groups adopted contemporary strategies such as
overgeneralization and avoidance.

Biraima.M.F (1996)

Conducted M.A study about 'Cohesive Devices in Students'

writing'. An analytical study of the performance of foreign learners of
English at university of Khartoum. His study did not seem to be
interested in discovering whether learners’ awareness or lack of
awareness of cohesive devices can correlate with the overall writing
quality. The study focused on whether instruction can enhance learners
awareness of English cohesive devices. The study have shown no
statistical differences between the groups he investigated in handling
cohesive devices.

Yahya.S.A. (2000)

Held a PhD study entitled 'Investigating Sudanese EFL learners'

written discourse competence'. The sample of the study were fourth year
English student at three different universities. His study assessed the
students’ performance from discourse perspective. The study concluded
that students' writing was characterized by a poor grasp of the properties
50
of English written discourse, i.e. discourse cohesion, discourse
coherence and discourse mechanics. The results have also shown that
the students lack of awareness of these discourse attributes seem to
correlate with their overall writing quality in that the majority of their
written performance was below average. His study investigated the
performance of fourth year students at three Sudanese universities.
Although his study investigated discourse errors,the present study will
focus on cohesion errors (i.e. of reference, conjunction, substitution and
ellipsis and lexical cohesion). Moreover the study will concentrate on
coherence breaks (i.e. of misleading paragraph division and irrelevance)
and these are the problems the researcher has gone through while
teaching written courses.

Atieh.H. (2006)

Claimed in his PhD study about the 'Manifestation of Cohesion

and Coherence in the Written English of Senior Palestinian University
Students'. The study investigated the difficulties relevant to cohesion
and coherence in English writing by adopting a description approach
both quantitatively and qualitatively in the analysis of 30 essay written
by 30 English Major seniors studying at Al-Quds University in
Palestine. The study showed the results that, there was serious weakness
in students ability to produce cohesive and coherent texts. Also there
was no correlation between the number of cohesive devices used in the
texts written by those students and the quality of those students’ writing
performance in general.

Ibrahim .S.(2009)

Conducted a PhD study entitled "Analysis and Assessment of

Palestinian EFL Majors' Written English'. His study had dealt with the
51
actuality of Palestinian EFL tertiary level majors' writing performance.
It dealt with the subjects' writing from different perspectives. His data
were collected from 120 students at different Palestinian universities.
The data were collected from written composition of subjects. The study
had shown to what extent the Palestinian EFl majors' were competent in
writing. It also shed the light on the problem they had in writings. The
study revealed that their performance reflected misuse of writing
mechanic viz punctuation, spelling and capitalization, grammar,
cohesive devices, coherence and fallacies in style which affected writing
quality negatively.

In conclusion this section tried to present the previous studies

that relate to the present study. The present study unlike the previous
studies will focus on the two aspects of written discourse i.e. coherence
and cohesion in the Sudanese university students' written texts.
Moreover ,the study will investigate whether Sudanese students have the
ability to use cohesive device properly. The the study will examine the
relation between the students' use of these devices and the overall
coherence of their texts.

2.7. Summary of the chapter

This chapter has reviewed literature on the concepts of coherence and
cohesion and their significance on making the written texts tied together.
Moreover some previous studies relevant to this study have been
reviewed.

In the previous studies, some of the researchers claimed that coherence

is the result of the use of cohesive devices. Whereas other researchers
supported the claim that, cohesion is not the cause but consequence of

52
coherence. The present study will be text-based and will investigate the
relation between coherence and cohesion.

53
 Chapter Three

Methodology
The focal objective of this chapter is to describe the research
methodology which is employed in this study. First, the chapter
describes the population on which the empirical part of the study has
been applied. Second, it provides description of the measuring tools
used. Third, it states the procedures for collecting the data of the study.

3.1. Population
This case study examines aspects of coherence and cohesion
through quantitative and qualitative analysis of two types of tests. The
first test is a written essay and the second is an objective test. These two
tests were answered by Sudanese university students of English
language at three different universities, namely, University of Dongola,
AlZaiem AlAzhary University and Omdurman Islamic University. The
students were at the third and the fourth year level.

The sample of the study was composed of one hundred students.

Fifty of them were male students and the remaining fifty were female
students. Table(3.1) shows the distribution of these subjects.

Table ( 3.1 ) The distribution of the subjects

Population Selected samples

University Male Female Male Female
Dongola 3 22 3 12
AlZaiem AlAzhary 21 20 21 10
Omdurman Islamic 26 38 26 28
Total 50 80 50 50
Source: filed study 2008

54
 Fifteen of the students were from University of Dongola, thirty-one
were from AlZaiem AlAzhary University and fifty-four were from
Omdurman Islamic University. The selection of fourth and third year is
based on the following assumptions:

The researcher thinks that the students were supposed to have

mastered the use of cohesive devices and how to write well organized
and coherent essays as a result of having been studying English courses
for three or four years. Due to the researchers' experience as a lecturer in
the university, the researcher knows that the courses contain different
writing courses. Moreover, these courses include studying of linguistics
courses which enable them to master the use of cohesive devices.

3.2. Research Tools

The researcher conducted one general expository writing test and a semi
close-type objective test. These two tests were used by the Palestinian
researcher, Atieh( 2006) who conducted these tests at Al-Quds
University on the West Bank in Palestine. The researcher made some
minor changes in these tests before using them in order to make it more
suitable to cope with the situation of the students in Sudan .These
changes did not affect the content of the tests. The use of these two tests
led to more valid and more reliable results to examine the correlation
between the two tools at the cognitive and performance levels.

The topic of the written test was about the academic problems at your
university which was an authentic one because it was familiar to the
subjects and because it was very relevant to their daily life as university
students. The subjects were also directed to utilize descriptive and rather
analytical style of writing. In such kind of writing the skills of producing
unified text can be tested easily. This was emphasized by the researcher
when she explained the instructions for the target subjects. Moreover,
55
the researcher included within the instructions some helpful guide points
so as to assist the subjects to write as easy as possible .The time given to
the subjects to finish the article was one hour which was sufficient.

The second test was an objective, semi close test. The students were
asked to answer four objective questions related to cohesion and
coherence. The aim of the first question was to examine the subjects'
cognitive abilities to connect sentences within a paragraph by filling in
the blank spaces with appropriate connectors. Ten connectors to be used
were offered. The second question had the same aim , but here the
subjects were to choose ten appropriate connectors from a given list.
The third question aimed at checking the subjects’ ability to reorder ten
jumbled sentences in a logical coherent manner by using ten appropriate
connectors and then to write them in a form of paragraph. The fourth
question aimed at examining the subjects' ability to match ten sentences
from column ‘A’ with ten sentences from column ‘B’ by using
appropriate connectors. Thus the overall aim of this test was to check
the subjects cognitive ability to deal with in the context of cohesion and
coherence as one textual genre .In other words, it is not true here that
certain questions are related to coherence alone and others are related to
cohesion separately.

It is worth mentioning that the first test, the general expository test
was assigned sixty scores and the second one was assigned forty scores,
with a total of one hundred scores for both of them. This means that
more emphasis was given to the first test, which would primarily be the
basis on which the researcher is going to conduct her statistical and
textual analysis of the data. The emphasis is on the test, because it is the
students real production that reflects their mastery of writing coherent
texts. Thus, the researcher the primary purpose of the second test is to

56
examine the correlation between the two tests in terms of the statistical
analysis, not in terms of stylistic and linguistic analysis.

3. 2 .1. Test Validity

Validity refers to the factor that data collection tool measures what it
is supposed to measure (Best&Kahan,1986).For instance , Halliday and
Hasan’s cohesion taxonomy was utilized by many researchers
(Conner,1984;Mccully,1985,Peyton,Staton,Richardson&Wolfrom,1990;
Tierney and Mosenthal ,1983).

According to Atieh (2006,88),the original designer of the two tests,

the validity of the two tests was assigned special attention .The two tests
were carefully designed in a way that their focal objective was to test the
subjects ability in writing cohesive and coherent texts.

In this study the researcher used the first test to test the subjects'
cohesive and coherent writing efficiency. The second test aimed at
testing their cohesive and coherent thinking. The first test was widely
selected in such a way that to lead to valid results. According to Atieh
(2006) ibid ,the two tests were validated by being reviewed by a group
of expert referees who provided some comments about them. These
comments were incorporated into the final version. On the other hand,
validity of the second test was measured by using ‘items factor analysis’
which showed the internal consistency of the text items and indicated
that they all combined in measuring the students’ writing performance
with reference to cohesion and coherence.(appendix F)

57
3.2.2. Test Reliability
It has been stated in Atieh (2006:89) that due to the fact that the first
test is general expository free writing text which included just one
question –rather than statement, so the reliability of this test was not
examined by conducting a piloting-group experiment. However, the real
test reliability was examined by calculating the internal consistency of
its paragraphs scoring by using Cronbach Alpha. Cronbach Alpha is a
statistical test. It is commonly used as a measure of the internal
consistency reliability. As stated by Cronbach (1951) , ‘ it is how well a
set of variances or items measures a single, unidimensional construct’. It
is defined as:

where N is the number of components (items or test lets), is the

variance of the observed total test scores, and is the variance of

component i.

Alternatively, the standardized Cronbach's α can also be defined as

where N is the number of components (items or test lets), equals the

average variance and is the average of all covariance between the
components. When this test applied for real answer of the study
population the result was (0.96).This value showed that the test was very
reliable .

For the second test the researcher gave it to a piloting group of

students, then the researcher scored it and the reliability was tested by

58
calculating the internal consistency of the test by using Cronbach Alpha.
The result was (0.76) .This result showed that the test was reasonably
reliable.

3.3. Procedures
As for the procedures adopted, the two tests were given to the students
in November 2008 at the three universities. The students were aware of
the purpose of the test .The first test was an expository .It tried to test
the students ability to produce a coherent test. The second one was an
objective test which provided the students with different options to
choose the correct answer. The time given to the test was reasonably
sufficient for the students to write the essay or to answer the objective
questions.

After collecting the students' answers the researcher scored the

scripts according to the measures in the following section.

3.4. The Scoring of the Test

In this section the researcher will explore the ways she used in scoring
the two tests.

3.4.1. Cohesion measure

In this section, attention was directed towards surface structure
devices that composers employ in order to establish relationships
between ideas in sentences. In other words, the researcher was
investigating the cohesive devices within the texts. Here, the researcher
made a distinction between what renders a text coherent, and what
renders it cohesive. That is a coherent text is considered as being both
coherent and cohesive; where as a cohesive text is not necessarily
coherent. The students may use many cohesive devices in their written

59
work which add nothing to the coherence of the text. This is because
they either overuse these devices or they use them in the wrong way.

Using the scoring code the researcher scored the text to the five
cohesive categories. The five cohesive categories were: lexical
cohesion, conjunctives, Reference, substitution and ellipsis. These
categories were initiated by Halliday & Hasan (1976) taxonomy to
examine the number and type of cohesive devices in the texts. Then, the
researcher counted and classified all the cohesive devices used within
each text according to these five categories.

The scores provided within this scoring code ranged from 0 to

5,and the researcher chose the score that best described the level of
each cohesive category within the paragraph being scored .The sum of
the scores was to be divided by five in order for the whole text to be out
of thirty. The other thirty scores were to be assigned to coherence. The
test was assigned sixty scores, for each paragraph, five for cohesion and
five for coherence.

3.4.2. Coherence measure

To score coherence within the texts, a global scoring code was
developed in this study. This code was developed in the light of
Bamberg’s (1984) guidelines for analyzing essays written for the
National Assessment of Educational Progress in her quest to provide an
answer to her question،what makes a text coherent? ”Mclinn (1988:65-
66).

The code was divided into five categories :focus, which means
that the text lacks a topical statement which can be general statement
that directs the reader’s attention to the way the content may unfold.
Topical statements are sought by the reader as they usually assist him
visualize a certain pattern that the text may unfold. This is applicable to
60
texts of complex functions and structures; e.g. purpose-method and
cause-effect method. The second category is development, which refers
to the ability of the students to compose well developed texts. The third
category is relevance ,that means whether the materials the students
bring to the text add something or nothing. In other words are they
relevant or not?.

The fourth category is organization; content organization is concerned

with whether paragraphs hang together in away that creates a well
identified type of text. In other words, content organization is not
concerned with whether the sentences of a paragraph or text relate
together in away that sequence of paragraphs must be perceived as
establishing a thought pattern that agrees with the academic writing
conventions.

Content organization closely relates to the outline or plan which the

writers set up prior to the actual writing of the texts. This is a very
important requirement for writing coherent texts. If the writer fails to
develop his text according to such an outline, the text then is described
as lacking content organization. This is because the writer will include
chunks of information which do not link with each other as one
organized unity.

The fifth category is continuity; this refers to grouping into paragraphs

so that each paragraph deals with one topic. Each one of these categories
was assigned five scores ranged from 0 to 5 and the sum was to be
divided by five in order for the whole text to be out of thirty.

Having finished now the description of the research methodology,

it is time to proceed to chapter four for the data analysis and discussion.

61
 Chapter Four
Data Analysis, Results & Discussion

The aim of this chapter is to analyze and discuss the results of the
data of cohesion and coherence tests applied to texts of general
expository nature and to texts of guided semi-closed nature. There were
four questions which were asked at the beginning of this study. Four
hypotheses were derived from them. Two tests (one of a general
expository nature and the other a semi-closed one) were built to collect
data.

The research data were computed by using SPSS program. Two

statistical tests were used: Analysis of Variance Test, ANOVA was used
to compute the students achievement in the two tests. In addition to
correlation test which was used to show the relation between coherence
and cohesion in the students written texts. In other words, the analysis of
the data in this chapter will be implemented in accordance with the
hypotheses stated in chapter one. The subjects on whom the tests were
applied were 100 students. 50% were male students and the other 50%
were females. These students were third and fourth year students, from
three different Sudanese universities. Tables (4.1),(4.2),and (4.3) show
the details of these subjects.

62
 Table (4.1)

Subjects of University of Dongola

University Class Gender Number Percentage

3rd year Females 4 66.6%
Dongola Males 2 33.3%

Females 8 88.9%

4th year Males 1 11.11%

Total 15
Source: Filed study 2008

The number of the student at University of Dongola mentioned in

table (4.1), were all the students who joined the department at that year.
So the researcher was obliged to take all the students for the sake of the
total number of the study's subjects.

Table (4.2)

Subjects of AlZaiem AlAzhary University

University Class Gender Number Percentage

AlZaiem 3rd Females 4 18.18%
AlAzhary Males 18 81.81%

4th year Females 6 66.7%

Males 3 33.3%

Total 31
Source: Filed study 2008

63
 Moreover, the number of the students in AlZaiem AlAzhary
University, were those who actually entered the test.

Table(4.3)

Subjects of Omdurman Islamic University

University Class Gender Number Percentage

Omdurman 3 Females 13 40.6%
Islamic Males 19 59.4
University
4 Females 15 68.18%

Males 7 31.81%
Source: Filed study 2008

The number of the students in the Islamic University, were those

who actually entered the test. Here, the researcher needed only one
hundred of the subjects. The total of those who entered the exam
became 100 students. So this why the number of the students at the
three universities varied in this way

4.1. Analysis of the results

In the present study, there were four hypotheses which corresponded

to the study questions. The researcher will analyse them one by one in
an effort to solve the study problem and answer its questions.

4.1.1. The first hypothesis

The first hypothesis which the study raised is as follows

There is weakness in Sudanese students’ written work due to their

ignorance of coherence and cohesion.

64
 To test this hypothesis the researcher used( ANOVA ) test as in
tables (4.4) , (4.5), (4.6), (4.7), (4.8), (4.9) to show the mean score of the
students in the first written test and the objective test.

Table (4.4)

Students' achievement in coherence Test ( the pass score is 50%)

Student Standard Test T-test Degree of Significance

Number Deviation value (T) Freedom
Level Mean (sig)
(std-d) (DF)

Coherence 100 7.73 4.767 15 -15.25 99 .000

Source: Filed study 2008

Table (4.4) shows a clear weakness at the coherence level. The

mean score is (7.73) out of 30%(30% here is the pass score) which is
significance and below the average according to the one sample
statistics test. To be acceptable the average should be 15% or more.
Here when the pass score is 50 which is the half score, the students
production of coherent texts is very poor.

Table(4.5)

Students' achievement in cohesion Test ( the pass score is 50%)

level Student Mean Standard Test T DF Sig

Number Deviation value
Cohesion 100 5.95 3.660 15 -24.72 99 .000

source: Filed study 2008

Table (4.5) reveals the mean score at the cohesion level which is
(5.95) out of 30%. The mean here is below the average according to the
one sample statistics test. This shows a serious weakness in the cohesion
level, because the average is below 15%. If we take the first test as a
whole out of 60, the mean is as follows in table (4.6).
65
 Table(4.6)

The analysis of the first test

level Student Mean Std-D Test T DF Sig

Number value
First test
out of 60 100 13.69 7.815 30 -20.87 99 .000

source: Filed study 2008

The mean score of the test is (13.69) out of 60%.The mean also is
below the average. This mean is significant , because it is below 30% .
Accordingly this is an indication of the weakness of the students' written
texts. The students were not well acquainted with of the rules of
cohesion and coherence. The students' failure in this level can be
explained more as in table (4.7) which tests the second test ,the
objective one.

Table (4.7)

The analysis of the objective test

level Student Mean Std-D Test T DF Sig

Number value
Objective test
out of 40 100 8.70 5.082 20 -22.24 99 .000

source: Filed study 2008

The objective test was a semi-closed test. It measured the students

cognitive ability in knowing coherence and cohesion. Although the
answers were given, the output of the students was weak. The mean
score was (8.70) out of 20 (20 % here is the pass score) which is very
low. It also reveals a serious weakness. This indicates that if the students
were aware of the rules of coherence and cohesion, their performance

66
would have been better. The answers were ready, all was wanted just to
organize them. Their failure in achieving organization of these answers
reflected their inefficiency in this field of knowledge which led to bad
results.

When we take the sum of the two tests out of 100, the weakness

becomes very clear. Table (4.8) indicates this weakness.

Table (4.8)

The analysis of the two tests together

level Student Mean Std-D Test T DF Sig

Number value
The two
tests out 100 22.45 10.507 50 -26.22 99 .000
of 100

source: Filed study 2008

The mean score of the test out of 100 is (22.45) that is also weak
as stated in tables (4.4), (4.5), (4.6), (4.7) and (4.8) this affirms the
weakness of the students.

Table (4.9)
The students’ achievement :
The pass score is 40% The pass score is 30%

67
Test Significanc Test Significance
T DF T DF
value e value
12 -8.95 99 .000 9 -2.66 99 .000
12 -16.52 99 000 9 -8.32 99 000
24 -13.20 99 000 18 -5.52 99 000
16 -14.36 99 000 12 -6.49 99 000
40 -16.70 99 000 30 -7.19 99 000
source: Filed study 2008

According to tables(4.4) (4.5),(4.6),(4.7) ,(4.8) and (4.9) there is a

clear weakness in the achievement of the students in the written texts,
the mean score in the three cases is below the average. Moreover, table
(4.10) states the maximum and minimum scores of the students in
coherence and cohesion tests.

Table(4.10)

Maximum &Minimum Scores of Cohesion- Coherence tests

Level Maximum score Minimum score

Coherence 18.2 0

Cohesion 13.8 0

Total of the first test out 29.6 0

of 60%

Objective test out of 40% 24 2

Total of the two tests out 49.2 2.2
of 100%
source: Filed study 2008

The maximum score of the students in coherence is (18.2) out of

30, and the minimum score is (0). In cohesion the maximum score is
(13.8)out of 30 and the minimum score is(0).In the objective test the
maximum score is (24) out of 40 and the minimum score is (2).The
students’ level of achievement is below the average of major English
students at the third and fourth year, whether the pass score is 30% or

68
40% or50%.The maximum score out of 100 is (49.2) and the minimum
score is (2.2).

In table (4.10) the minimum score in coherence and cohesion is (0)

which showed a serious weakness. The weakness in coherence and
cohesion led to the low achievement in the written work of these
Sudanese university students. This was supported by Yahya's study
(2000) which he conducted on Sudanese students at the tertiary level,
concluded that students’ writing was characterized by a poor grasp of
the properties of English written discourse, as relates to cohesion,
coherence and mechanics. The results of Yahya’s study showed that the
students lack of awareness of these discourse attributes seem to have
caused overall writing quality of the majority of their written
performance to be below average. These results correlate to the results
of the present study . Atieh (2006) in his study which he conducted at
Al-Quds University in Palestine, found that there was a serious
weakness in the students ability to produce cohesive and coherent texts.
The weakness according to Atieh is because of their ignorance of
coherence and cohesion rules. These results correlate to the results of
the present study. Tables (4.11.1) and (4.11.2) present a comparison
between the students of the third year and those of the fourth one.

69
 Table (4.11.1)

Comparison between the achievement of the students of the third year

& the fourth year

The Number Std-

written of deviation
Class Mean T df sig
test students
coherence 3 60 6.1933 4.17855 -4.286 98 .000

4 40 10.0400 4.70727

cohesion 3 60 5.3900 3.33679 -1.920 98 .058

4 40 6.8050 3.98934

Total out 3 60 11.5833 6.99126 -3.478 98 .001

of 60% 4 40 16.8450 8.00327

source: Filed study 2008

Table (4.11.1) indicates that, in the written test, the written test,
there was significant differences between the students of third and
fourth year. The achievement of the students of the fourth year in the
coherence level is better than those of the third year. Nevertheless, there
is a significant difference in the cohesion level in the whole test out of
60%. The students of the fourth year were better than those of the third
year. This indicates that, the students of the fourth year had more
information about coherence and cohesion than those of the third year.
Furthermore, table (4.11.2) will present the students differences in the
second test, the objective test.

70
 Table (4.11.2)

Comparison between the students of the third year & the fourth year
in the second test

The Number Std-

objective of deviation
Class Mean T df sig
test students
3 60 8.5333 5.16004 -.400 98 .690

4 40 8.9500 5.01766

The total 3 60 20.2733 10.14605 -2.612 98 .010

of the two 4 40 25.7175 10.30850
tests out
of 100

source: Filed study 2008

Table (4.11.2) shows that there is no significant difference

between the students of the fourth and the third year in the objective
test. However, when the two tests out of 100 were considered, there was
significant difference between the students of the different classes. This
difference indicates that students will be better if the doses of the written
aspects are increased. According to the analysis above the students level
generally was weak, So the first hypothesis is confirmed.

4.1.2. The second hypothesis

This hypothesis is stated as follows:

University students do not use cohesive devices appropriately.

To test this hypothesis, the researcher used Duncan test as in table

(4.12)which reveals the general mean score of the use of cohesive
devices.

71
 Table (4.12)

Mean of Maximum and Minimum Score of Cohesion Categories

Number of Standard
Category Maximum Minimum Mean
students Deviation
Reference 100 43.00 2.00 10.4 7.17

Lexical 100 26.00 3.00 9.18 4.14

Conjunction 100 25.00 1.00 8.08 4.00

Ellipsis 100 3.00 .00 0.23 0.57

Substitution 100 2.00 00 0.33 0.51

Sum 100 71.00 10.00 28.28 11.46

Source: Filed study 2008

According to table (4.12) there is variation in the mean of the five

categories of cohesion. The analysis showed that, the students use of
substitution and ellipsis was very weak. The students may not be well
acquainted of these two categories.

Then table (4.13) indicates the frequencies of the cohesive devices.

Table(4.13)

Frequency of cohesive devices in the student’s written texts

Category Frequency
Reference 1020
Conjunction 918
Lexical 808
Substitution 33
Ellipsis 23
Total 2802
Table (4.14) reveals the percentage of the students’ use of cohesive
devices according to their frequencies in their written texts. From the
table (4.13) it is clear that the students' use of reference is the most.
Whereas their use of Substitution and ellipsis is the least. See appendix

72
(G )for the frequency of cohesive devices in the written texts of the
students.

Table(4.14)

Percentage of cohesive devices

Category Percentage

References 36.40%

Conjunction 32.76%

Lexical 28.83%

Substitution 1.17%

Ellipsis 0.82%

source: Filed study 2008

When we have a look at the table of the percentage, we can see

that, the reference is the highest and ellipsis is the lowest percentage.
Tables (4.13) & (4.14) , show that there is overuse of some
categories and lack of use of others which mean that the use of these
categories by students was not right. The percentage of reference is the
highest one, while there is clear neglect of ellipsis and substitution
which will lead to bad texts. Moreover, the textual analysis in section
two of this chapter will reveal more clarification with support of
examples of the written texts of the students. In her study, Prtichard
(1980) investigated cohesive devices in written work by eleven graders.
She found that their writing was characterized by overuse and
unsuccessful use of cohesive devices. Furthermore, Witte and Faigly
(1981) examined essays to explore the relationship between writing
quality and coherence of written English texts. They found that lexical
cohesive features of synonym, hyponym, and collocation were
important elements in writing quality. In the present study although the
percentage of lexical cohesion which is (28.83%) , it can be considered,
73
 there was wrong use of synonym and collocation which led to poor texts
,more illustration will be set on 4.2.1.3. of this chapter. Magabbleh
(1992) revealed in his study on the part of cohesion, that cohesion
within the paragraphs was poorly accomplished through the use of
cohesive ties more than any other devices. There was over use of ‘and”
as a connector and the wrong use of references .This was the same
problem for the subjects of the present study, there was over use of
‘and’ ,and wrong use of references. The wrong use of references will be
discussed in detail in 4.2.1.1. In the light of this discussion the
hypothesis that:
University students do not use cohesive devices appropriately, is
confirmed and accepted.

4.1.3 . The third hypothesis

This hypothesis claims that:

There is no significant difference among the achievement of the

students of the three universities of the study.

To test this hypothesis, the researcher used (ANOVA) test as in table

(4.15) to reveal the differences between the three universities of the study.

Table(4.15)
Difference in achieving coherence &cohesion among the three universities
The first test
Sum of squares Df Mean F Sig
square
74
 Coherence Between 394.254 2 197.127 10.307 .000
groups

Within 1855.204 97 19.126

groups

Total 2249.458 99
Cohesion Between 499.137 2 249.568 29.290 .000
groups
Within 826.510 97 8.521
groups
Total 1325.646 99
Total of 60 Between 1752.594 2 876.297 19.797 .000
groups
Within 4293.672 97 44.265
groups
Total 6046.266 99
source: Filed study 2008

Table (4.16)

Difference in achieving coherence & cohesion among the three universities

The second test

Sum of Df Mean F Significance

squares square
Between 286.277 2 143.138 6.115 .003

75
 groups

Within 2270.723 97 23.410

groups

Total 2557.000 99

source: Filed study 2008

Table (4.16) reveals that there are differences between the three
universities of the study in achieving coherence and cohesion in their
written texts. Moreover, to clarify these differences the researcher used
(ANOVA) and Duncan tests as stated in table (4.17) .

Table (4.17)

Differences in achieving coherence level

University Number of Subset for alpha=.05

students
1 2
University of Dongola 15 10.3200
Al Zaiem AlAzhary University 31 4.8968
Omdurman Islamic University 54 10.3200
Significance 1.000 .173
Source: Filed study 2008

The results in table (4.17) show that the achievement of AlZaiem

AlAzhary University students is the lowest in coherence in comparison
with Dongola University and Omdurman Islamic University students.
On the other hand the students of Dongola University and Omdurman
Islamic University are the same in achieving coherence in their written
texts. For cohesion level table (4.18) is designed by the researcher to
present the results of comparison between the three universities of the
study.

76
 Table(4.18)

Differences in Cohesion level

University Number of Subset for alpha=.05

students

1 2

University of Dongola 15 7.6667

AlZaiem AlAzhary University 31 2.6258

Omdurman Islamic University 54 7.3926

Significance 1.000 .738

Source: Filed study 2008

In addition to what was revealed by table (4.17), which

analyzed coherence level. Table (4.18) which analyzed cohesion level
revealed the same results. That the students of AlZaiem AlAzhary
University were the weakest in achieving cohesion in their written texts
in comparison with Dongola University and Omdurman Islamic
University students. On the other hand there was no significant
difference between the students of Dongola University and Omdurman
Islamic University in achieving cohesion in their written texts. Here two
of the universities of the study are the same in achieving coherence and
cohesion in their written texts. As a result the hypothesis that, there is no
significant difference between the achievement of the students of the
three universities of the study is confirmed and accepted.

4.1.4. The fourth hypothesis

This hypothesis states the following

There is a significant correlation between the students' use of cohesive

devices and the coherence of their written texts.

77
To test this hypothesis the researcher used Correlation Coefficient Test
to show the use of the cohesive devices and the coherence of the written
texts of the students as stated in tables (4.19 ) & (4.20).

Table(4.19)

Correlation between coherence &Cohesion in the students

written texts

Coherence Mean

.716(**) 1 Pearson correlation Sig.(2-tailed)

.000

100 100 N

Source: Filed study 2008

**Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2- tailed)

The analysis in table (4.19), reveals that the correlation is significant

between the use of the cohesive devices and coherence that is (0.01).

78
 Table (4.20)

Correlation between coherence &Cohesion

Objective test

Coherence Pearson correlation .181

Sig.(2-tailed) .072

N 100

Cohesion Pearson correlation .395(**)

Sig.(2-tailed) .000

N 100

Total of 60 Pearson correlation .295(**)

Sig.(2-tailed) .003

N 100

Source: Filed study 2008

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level(2-tailed).

Moreover, table (4.20) shows that the influence of the students'

use of the cohesive devices and the coherence of their written texts.

The analysis of the results displayed by tables (4.19) ,(4.20) revealed

that influence of the students' use of the cohesive devices and the
coherence of their written texts was significant. Accordingly what had
been stated by Conner (1984) in her study which examined coherence
and cohesion in ESL learners writing as compared with the writing of
native speakers. She concluded that to be cohesive, an ESl article does
not need to be coherent. The results of Conner's study contradicts the
results of the present study. Khalil (1989in Atieh 2006) investigated the
relationship between cohesion and coherence in 20 compositions of
Arab EFL students, college writing. The relationship of cohesion and

79
coherence was also tested by the use of multiple correlation statistics.
Controlling for the number of T-units used in each composition. Weak
correlation was found (r=0.18) between the number of cohesive ties and
the coherence score of the text. In the present study according to the
analysis the correlation between coherence and cohesion is significant.
As a result the hypothesis , there is a correlation between the students'
use of cohesive devices and the coherence of their written texts is
confirmed .

The previous analysis in 4.1 was based on statistical method.

These methods were ANOVA test, T-test and Duncan test to discuss the
research hypotheses. The hypotheses were discussed in the light of the
results obtained from the statistical analysis of the written texts of the
students of the three universities of the study. The discussion showed
that the four hypotheses of the study were confirmed and accepted. The
second section will deal with textual analysis of the two levels i.e.
cohesion and coherence .This analysis will focus on examples from the
written texts of the students.

4.2. Textual Analysis

The main purpose of this study is to explore the extent to which
cohesion and coherence are manifested in the writing performance of
third and fourth year English students at Dongola, Al Zaiem AlAzhary
and Omdurman Islamic Universities. In other words it aims at
examining the main hypotheses of the study upon which the whole
research was constructed. This is to measure the degree of weakness in
the writing ability of the subjects of the study as relates to the problem
of cohesion and coherence level. The study also aims at investigating
the most commonly used types of cohesive devices in the students
writing as well as the types that are scarcely used.

80
 The statistical results stated in this chapter will play an important role
in achieving the purpose of this section. However, more attention will
be directed to the discussion inspired by the two levels of academic
writing in the scoring guide. Therefore, examples drawn from the
students texts will support the discussion of the results in this chapter.
The following aspects will be the bases of the discussion of the students’
performance in writing the texts:

1-Cohesion

2-Coherence

This discussion will be drawn upon examples selected from the texts
of general expository nature which constituted the first test. As far as
cohesion and coherence are concerned, the discussion will focus on the
students’ failure to achieve these two aspects.

4.2.1. Cohesion

With respect to cohesion, the discussion will focus on the students’

ability to use successfully cohesive devices within the texts in a way that
helps the connection between phrases, clauses and sentences. Thus the
reader can smoothly go through the text as one unified unit whose ideas
are logically related by using appropriate linking words.

In this section, attention will be given to three categories of the

linking words: lexical, reference and conjunction. Marginal attention
will be given to the other categories: ellipsis and substitution. This
because these are hardly available in the students texts.

The statistical analysis in table (4.5) showed that the students

command of cohesion was so weak , the mean score is(5.96) out of
30%.This mean score is also associated with the student mean score on
coherence (7.73) out of 30%. In other words there was no student got

81
the passing score on cohesion and only 8 passed the coherence test
(Appendix H). This proves that the command of one rhetorical level
contributes to the command of the other. This level of academic
achievement is much less than the expected level of university majoring
English students.

By looking at (Appendix G) and with respect to students’ use of

cohesive devices, we can see that students were able to employ in their
essays a big number of cohesion categories.

The total number of these categories was (2802). The mean score
was (28.28) per student. Those connectors are classified according to
their frequency: reference, conjunction, lexical, substitution and ellipsis
(Appendix G).

4.2.1.1. Reference

This is the first category of cohesion (36.40) of all other categories. In

the students’ texts most of the weakness related to cohesion, in
particular and coherence in general. This weakness is attributed to the
students misuse of reference cohesive devices, i.e. ambiguous reference
connectors. Appendix (G) shows that reference cohesive devices were
most frequently persistent ones in most of the texts. The overuse of
reference devices brought about a big number of errors within those
texts as stated below in the example of a student’s text.

1-Lecture rooms it very bad, hot, narrow and bad benches. It sometime
we no understand the lecture.

No need to use it in the first part of the sentence, there should be a verb
to be. In the other part of the sentence also it should be omitted.

2- Courses it very bad. You do not need for any adds.

82
The student here should use a verb to be instead of the pronoun. Then he
should use the pronoun we instead of you.

3- The academic problem at your university is lecture time.

Here, there is a wrong use of the pronoun your , the pronoun 'our ' is the
correct one..

4- Some of your classification is not enough for the reach of

information.

The pronoun your is wrong, here, the student should use our.

5- The library himself is a problem.

The use of the pronoun himself is wrong.

4.2.1.2. Conjunctives

There are basic conjunctive relationships: addition, opposition, cause

and temporal sequence. Analyzing the texts, the researcher identified
(918) conjunctive devices. This represented (32.76%) of the others (see
table (4.12). The students' command of conjunctives was unsatisfactory.
In most cases students used those conjunctives inappropriately. Some of
those conjunctives are indiscriminately used again and again regardless
of whether they are correct or incorrect, necessary or unnecessary. The
indiscriminate use of conjunctive can be attributed to the students’
failure to understand the relationships among the different parts of the
texts. It can also be attributed to the lack of knowledge about cohesive
devices, or to the lack of exercise in using them. The examples below
are taken from the students written texts:

1- Lecture rooms is good and comfortable and clean and that is good.

2- If I found a chance and the suitable lecture room and good courses I
will be all right in English.

83
3- Although library it’s very small and rich references

The conjunctive "and" is repeated in these two sentences. This

repetition make the sentences incorrect and reflect the interference of the
mother tongue when the students are thinking and writing in a foreign
language. In sentence (3) the conjunction is incorrect.

4.2.1.3. Lexical

By lexical cohesion we mean the successful and functional use

of lexical devices e.g. synonymy, collocation. For this purpose of
illustrating this aspect table ( 4.12 ) indicated that among the (2802)
cohesive devices which were used within the 100 texts, students used
808 lexical cohesive devices , 28.83% of the whole number. Examples:-

1- Moreover they did not up their voices during the lecture some of
teacher only.

2- I want to say for ministry of education please found situation of

courses problems.

3- Some of your classification is not enough for the reach of

information.

In sentence (1) there is misselection of the preposition. In

sentence (2) there is also a wrong use of the preposition, and wrong use
of the word situation. In sentence (3) the words classification &reach are
not used in the suitable places.

4.2.1.4. Ellipsis and Substitution

Ellipsis refers to the case where the writer deletes a certain lexical
item which is embedded within the context of the text. This deletion
does not of course, affect the grammatical, structural or semantic pattern
of the text. On the other hand, substitution refers to the case where the
writer uses one lexical item that implies the meaning of another one. In
84
both cases, the reader will ,therefore ,go through the text easily and
smoothly. Such cases are not dominant in the texts concerned in this
study. Table(4.12) illustrated the frequency of these two categories of
cohesion.

1-Lecture rooms it very very bad,hot,narrow and bad benches. It

sometime we no understand the lecture.

2-The lecture rooms are not suitable for us because the seats are not
comfortable for us

3-The library it not enough.

4- Although library it is very small and rich references.

All pronouns which are used ,should be omitted.

4.2.2.Coherence

The sample texts to be discussed in this section will be drawn from a

number of essays which were written by the students in the first test ,the
general expository. The purpose of this discussion is that the researcher
wishes to explain, the students serious weakness in writing coherent
texts through giving authentic examples which present the different
aspects of the weakness. A look at (Appendix H ) shows the results of
the students in the coherence test. It can be seen that most of them failed
the test. The maximum score was (18.2) and the minimum is (0) .The
mean score was (7.73) out of 30.These figures show that the students'
performance in the writing test was bad. In other words, they were not
capable of composing well written and coherent essays. This failure
undoubtedly, contradicts all the expectations about them as senior
students who are majoring in English language .

The following sections will be about: topic development, topic

focus, topic organization, topic relevance and topic continuity.
85
4.2.2.1 Topic Development

The ability of the students to compose well developed texts is very

weak . This weakness is the most dominant feature in all most all of the
students' texts. It can be regarded as a persistent phenomena. By
examining some randomly selected examples, the researcher noticed
that most students failed to elaborate on the topics which they initiated
in their essays. The students' topics are either global related to the whole
text or paragraphs, or sub-topics embedded in paragraphs. It appears to
be the very dominant weakness. This characteristic was the most
common .Another main point in discussing weakness related to topic
development is that in many of the paragraphs, the sentences that
constituted the paragraphs were only constructions that were weakly
connected together, thus lacking unifying topics. The following is an
example of an essay written by one of the study’s subjects:

Teaching staff

The teaching staff They have some problems No understand the

saucolges (psychologies) of students them

Lectures

No problems in the lectures

Courses:

The courses problems difficult in som (some) courses neded (needed)

some tiams(time).

Exams:

One the problem exams neded (needed) long time between two exams
two problem repeat last the exams.

Lecture rooms:

86
The lecture room at is very bad and no condition (condition)and no
electriyset (electricity).

If we look at this essay we notice that there is no characteristic of

a well organized essay. The sentences were not well connected. The
ideas were not stated clearly and were not elaborated. The paragraphs
were not connected with each other so as to give a unified piece of
writing. Moreover, there are spelling mistakes. All these things reflect a
serious weakness in the student level, student who is major in English
and supposed to graduate with a B. A degree.

4.2.2.2.Topic Focus

Among the weaknesses that were exclusively pin pointed by the

researcher, was the lack of focus .Focus means here that the text lacks a
topical statement which can be general statement that directs the
reader’s attention to the way the content may unfold. Topical statements
are sought by the reader as they usually assist him visualize a certain
pattern that the text may unfold. This is applicable to texts of complex
functions and structures; e.g. purpose-method and cause-effect. The
following example is an essay written by one of the subjects. This
student started his essay as follows:

1- Most of the teachers in the university do not know to learn the

lectures. we speak outside the topic or give our sheets and not
learning. The teachers we just keeping the attendance. we say more
the student not exam.

Lectures:

most lectures the time is not ok and did not look of the students
understand or not……

87
2-Lectures it the biggest problems in university to many reasons,
much lectures through the day and return to home lately.

Example (1) ,(2) above are the beginning of the essay. This beginning
lacks focus. The reader of this essay was not informed about the topic.
In such a case the main idea of the topic was not introduced. This lead to
a weak text.

4.2.2.3. Topic Relevance

This is another recurrent aspect of weakness in many texts.

Irrelevance relates to any material the writer introduces to the text which
either add nothing to the anticipated context or does not fit into the
topic. As a result, the reader cannot perceive the function of that
material in the text .Therefore, it sounds odd within the context where it
is used. It was noticed that, in most cases where texts suffered from
weak development, irrelevance to the topic in question also appeared.
Experiments related to cognitive psychology explains this simultaneity
of these two weaknesses. Those experiments had shown that in an early
stage of the writing process, writers jot down notes they presume to be
relevant to the topic they are dealing with. According to those
experiments, this happens before the stage where the notes get refined
and sorted out in the light of their relevance to the topic and the plan
adopted for developing it. Thus irrelevant ideas can be viewed from this
angle as sentences that remain in the texts due to the lack of refinement
and sorting out.

It was noticed in the analysis of the texts that in some cases the
students deviated from the line of thoughts and some of the ideas they
stated have only a very a marginal or loose relationship either with the
global topic or with the local topic developed in the paragraphs the
students were writing.
88
1- when I was in secondary school I had a hope that to learn English
language and to know more knowledge about this foreign language
,because know English language was become the language of
communication and language of science for all this logic
reason..Preferred to study English language in convention way. I
choose Omdurman Islamic University in my self I believe in the best,
that before I joined.

This paragraph added nothing to the text .It is irrelevant, since the topic
was about the academic problems in the student’s university.

2- Education is the important to school teacher is very well because to

happy to the people of the school can you speak educate .Teacher is
important to people. The teacher is for school. Finally the teacher to
study to examination to people of the school.

The above paragraph is not important for the text and added nothing to
it.

4.2.2.4.Topic Continuity

Topic continuity refers to grouping into paragraphs so that each

paragraph deals with one topic. This aspect proved to be one of the
weaknesses in the analyzed texts. The example below is a paragraph of
one of the student’s written texts:

1- And the courses are difficult to be clear without a good condition.

2- Teaching staff very good and active, nice

Lecture short time and long topic

Courses very easy normal

The exams very difficult becomes especialy history

Lecture rooms are small the students sit six in the bencsh.

89
Although library it’s very small and rich references.

3- First of all I wont think all the people studies in English on

any teacher.

Teachers in this university very coulivied (qualified)but we need

change in lecture rooms, also needing books because the English
not essy(easy) studies. All the people suffering studied English.

In examples (1),(2),and (3) above, there is clear weakness in the

continuity of these text because there was no paragraphing in these
texts. For a text to have the characteristic of continuity ,there should
be paragraphing for the topic and each paragraph should deal with
one idea.

4.2.2.5.Topic Organization

It is worth mentioning that there is a difference between topic

organization and topic development .In topic development ,a reader
might find a paragraph whose sentences range well around a certain
topic ,and yet he might find it deviant from the function of the main
topic .It is essential to state here that content organization is concerned
with whether paragraphs hang together in away that creates a well
identified type of text. In other words ,content organization is not
concerned with whether the sentences of a paragraph or text relate
together in away that sequence of paragraphs must be perceived as
establishing a thought pattern that agrees with the academic writing
conventions.

Content organization relates closely to the plan which the writer

sets up prior to the actual writing of the text. This is a very important
requirement for writing coherent texts. If the writer fails to develop his
text according to such an out line ,the text then is described as lacking

90
content organization. It will include chunks of information which do
not fit together in an organized whole.

During the analysis of the texts of the students, the researcher

noticed that the weakness related to content organization was so
persistent in many of those texts . One major observation was that in
many texts, the paragraphs were merely chunks that were loosely strung
together, lacking elements of coherence. In other words the paragraphs
were sequenced in no logical order. Examples (1,2,3) below will reveal
the weakness at this level.

1- Also we have problem of courses we have more courses in semester

we study more than ten or nine subject in semester E.g i study in
English department but i study just 2 course of English in semester.

There are no more courses of English that make me feel i am tired or i

am can not able to be a teacher in future every one or I found a
chance and suitable lecture room and good courses i will be all right
in English.

And the important things is courses I want to say for ministry of

education please found situation of courses problems. If there is no
situation there is no education then no life.

2- libarary

the library is very important in any university ,if you no library no

university.

I think that the good library today library technic.

But in my university many problems and we are no any technical

in library no any new all things is ancient and the times no enough.

For example in my library the systems day males and day

females this system no give us may times .
91
 3- First of all I wont think all the people studies in English on any
teacher.

Teachers in this university very coulivied(qualified)but we need

change in lecture rooms, also needing books because the English
not essy(easy) studies. All the people suffering studied English .

The examples given above reveal weakness in these written texts.

The ideas in these texts were not developed. The sentences were not
linked in the proper way to give a unified meaning. The paragraphs are
loose. As a result these texts lack organization.

4.3. Summary of the chapter

This chapter has presented the results and the discussion of the
hypotheses of the study. The researcher analyzed 100 texts written by
100 students 50 were male students and the other 50 were females.
These students were studying at three different Sudanese universities.
These universities were the universities of Dongola, AlZaiem AlAzhary
University and Omdurman Islamic University.

The researcher adopted the analytical and descriptive method. As

relates to the statistical analysis the writer adopted the statistical analysis
using the (SPSS) program.

The analysis of the results showed that there was a great weakness
in the students levels. Although the students were majoring in English
and they were finalist and semi finalist, they failed to get marks over the
average. There was significant difference between the students of the
third year and those of the fourth year in the whole test which was
marked out of 100.This indicated that these students will be more
competent if they were instructed more a bout the problems of
coherence and cohesion. They also failed to write unified texts. Their

92
failure indicated that, these students were not aware of using the
cohesive devices in the proper way. Furthermore, they were not able to
follow the rules of coherence. As result they did not develop the
arguments in their texts in a logical way . Accordingly, the students
deficiency in applying the rules of coherence and cohesion was reflected
in their written work. The researcher postulated four hypotheses in this
study. The four hypotheses were confirmed and accepted. In the final
chapter, the researcher will present the summary of the study, some
recommendations and suggestions for further studies in the field under
investigation.

Chapter Five

93
 Summary, Conclusions, Recommendations &
Suggestions for Further Studies
This chapter is comprised of a summary of the study, Conclusions,
recommendations and suggestions for further studies .

5.1. Summary of the study

The present study attempted to investigate a very intricate and
crucial aspect of learning English as a foreign language, that is the
writing skill. Special attention has been given to the two major
rhetorical requirements of writing. These are coherence and cohesion.
The researcher tackled this topic through applying both descriptive and
analytical methods. The study is comprised of five chapters. The
subjects of this study were university students at level three and four.
These students were, from three Sudanese universities, namely,
University of Dongola, AlZaiem AlAzhary University and Omdurman
Islamic University . To investigate the problem of the study the
researcher raised four questions. These questions were as follow:

1. To what extent can weakness of the written work of university

students be attributed to the lack of awareness of coherence and
cohesion?

2- How appropriately do university students use the cohesive

devices?

3- To what extent do university students of the study differ in

achieving coherence and cohesion in their texts?

4- To what extent does the use of the cohesive devices correlate to

the coherence of the students' written texts ?

94
 Based on these questions. Four hypotheses were put. These
hypotheses were as follows:

1. There is weakness in Sudanese university Students’ written work

due to their ignorance of coherence and cohesion.

2. Sudanese university students of English language do not use

cohesive devices correctly.

3. There is no significant difference in the achievement of the sample

students of the three universities of the study.

4- There is a significant correlation between the students' use of

cohesive devices and the coherence of their written texts.

To test the truth of these hypotheses, the researcher used two

tests. The first test was a written essay in order to test the writing
abilities of the students. The second test was an objective test in order to
test the students cognitive abilities in achieving coherence and cohesion
in their written texts. The two tests were originally designed and
validated by the Palestinian researcher Atieh, (2006:88).The tests
reliability was also confirmed by the original designer and researcher .

The analysis of the data of this study focused on two main levels
of textual analysis : coherence and cohesion. At the cohesion level, the
analysis of students' written texts tackled five rhetorical categories:
reference, conjunction, lexical, ellipsis and substitution. Moreover, the
analysis on the coherence level focused also on five categories: topic
development, topic relevance, topic continuity, topic focus and topic
organization. The five categories of each level discussed in chapter four
should be emphasized as one systematized integrity.

The results presented in chapter (4) which described the students’

performance at the cognitive level and the writing level have revealed a

95
very serious deficiency in the linguistic level of the student . The
students did not achieve the pass mark in the two tests of the study. In
the first test, the written test, the students' written texts were loose and
incoherent. The analysis also revealed the students' weakness in using
cohesive devices. In the second test which is an objective test, they were
not able to arrange the sentences in away to be coherent and cohesive.

5.2. Conclusions of the study

Based on the results of the data analysis , the study revealed the
following results:

As relates to the first hypothesis, which states that, there is weakness

in Sudanese Students’ written work due to their ignorance of coherence
and cohesion. The results showed that this hypothesis is true according
to the scores of the students in both the written and the objective tests.
So the first hypothesis was confirmed and was accepted.

The second hypothesis states, university students do not use

cohesive devices appropriately. According to the results obtained from
the students’ written texts, their use of cohesive devices was not
appropriate. In addition, the percentage of the frequency of the
categories of cohesive devices varied greatly. Thus the second
hypothesis was confirmed.

As for the third hypothesis, states, there is no significant difference in

the achievement of the students of the three universities of the study.
The results obtained from the analysis of the written texts of the students
of these universities, indicated that the students face the same problems.
Thus the hypothesis was confirmed.

The fourth hypothesis states that, There is a significant correlation

between the students' use of cohesive devices and the coherence of their

96
written texts revealed that to be coherent a text needs to be cohesive. As
a result, the fourth hypothesis was confirmed and was accepted

Accordingly, the main findings of this study were:

1- The weakness of the Sudanese university Students’ written work can

be attributed to their ignorance of coherence and cohesion.

2- Sudanese university students do not use cohesive devices correctly.

3- There is no significant difference in the sample students'

achievement of the three universities of the study.

4- There is a significant correlation between the students' use of

cohesive devices and the coherence of their written texts.

To sum up, having analyzed the texts written by the sample

subjects, the researcher noticed that the most dominant linguistic,
rhetorical and stylistic features within these texts were that, students
tend to write many general statements that do not reveal specific
information. Moreover the students did not use a lot of cohesive devices
within the same sentence and between pairs of sentences. Furthermore
they shifted from one idea to another in an illogical way and tended to
produce chunks of information which do not link with each other as one
organized whole.

5.3. Recommendations
In the light of the findings of the study ,the researcher has made the
following recommendations:

1- The analysis of the results showed that, the Sudanese university

EFL learners were incompetent in writing. Their overall scores
were below the pass level. This low achievement in writing seems
to be due to lack of practice. Students rarely practise writing by

97
 themselves, they do not write unless they are asked to. Therefore,
more attention should be given to the practice of writing to make
it an easy task for the learners. More practice in the skill of
writing helps the students to master it.

2- The students' awareness of the importance of writing should be

increased regarding writing composition as a means of expressing
their feelings and thoughts. Students have learnt the basics of
writing through the different levels of learning English . Thus
they are required to care more for writing and to develop their
writing abilities by themselves. The students should know that
writing is one of the most important means used to assess their
proficiency in English language.

3- School teachers and university instructors should dedicate part of

the time allotted for English language classes for training their
students in the skill of writing. They are also required to raise the
students interest in writing and to encourage them to write about
the topics they prefer.

4- Instructors always need to revise and evaluate the students

written work and to comment on it. As a result, Students can feel
the importance of their written work. Then the comments can
guide them to improve their writing.

5- Emphasis should be laid on coherence and cohesion when

teaching writing. Students’ attention should be drawn to the
importance of these elements in making writing comprehensible.

6- English syllabus designers should give a considerable attention to

coherence and cohesion in the syllabus .

98
 7- There should be a continuous assessment of the students' written
work which can be presented many times to undergo a process of
editing.

5.4. Suggestions for further studies

This study attempted to investigate coherence and cohesion in the
Sudanese EFL learners' written works. Thus further research and more
investigation should be made in this area. The researcher suggests that,
this kind of study should be applied on post graduate students. Nearly all
the previous studies had been done at the undergraduate level.
Moreover, the researcher suggests that, these aspects should be
investigated in the written texts of those who study English for academic
purposes (EAP ) and special purposes (ESP). Then a comparison should
be made with those who are majoring in English. All the previous
studies concentrated on the students who are majoring in English, so it is
better if some studies will be done on those who are not majoring.

99
 Bibliography
Argamon, S.et al.(2003).Gender, genres and Writing Style in Formal

Written Texts. Retrieved from http:// www.iriit.edu/argaman/gender.

Atieh, H. (2006). The Manifestation of Cohesion and Coherence in the

Written English of Senior University Students: A textual
Analytic Study. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Sudan University
ofScience and Technology. Sudan.

Baudoin,E.Margaret et al. (1977).Reader’s choice. Ann Arober, Mich.

The University Michigan Press.

Beene, L. (1985) .Text linguistics and composition: Research and

Practical Connection. New Mexico, U.S. ERIC Data base.
Document No. ED 27863.

Best, J.W, & Kahan, J.V.(1986). Research in education(5th.Ed).

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Blanpain (2006). Academic Writing in the Humanities and Social

Sciences. ACCO.

Braima. M. (1996). Cohesive Devices in Students Writing. An analytical

Study of the Performance of Foreign Learners of English. Un
publish MA Thesis. University of Khartoum. Khartoum.

Brown and Yule (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge university

press.

100
Carell, P.L. (1982).Cohesion is not coherence. TESOl Quartly,16,479-
488.

Chapman, L. John (1983) .Reading Development and Cohesion.

London.Heninmen.

Christian, K.B. (1990) .Characteristics of Graded and Upgraded

Composition .The modern Language Journal.Vol 74.No 10.

Conner, U.(1984).A study of Cohesion and Coherence in English as a

Second Language Students’ Writing, International Journal of
Human Communication, 17,301-316.

Cook, G.(1989). Discourse. London. Longman.

Cook. M.J. (1983) .Trouble Spots of English Grammar. LongmanGroup.

Cooper(1998): Evaluating Writing. The role of teachers’ knowledge

about text learning and culture. National Council of Teachers
of English

Coupland & Jaworski (2006) .The Discourse Reader. Routledge-Taylor

&FrancisGroup.

Cox, B.E. and Sulzby, E. (1990) .The good and poor elementary
reader’s use of cohesion in writing. Reading Research
Quarterly,xxv\1:47-65

101
Crewe, W.J. (1990). “The Illogic of Logical Connectives’’ ELT
Journal. Vol. 44/4 October 1990, Oxford University Press.

Crombie, W. (1985b) .Process and relation in discourse and language

learning. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Crothers,E.J. (1978).Inference and Coherence Discourse Process,51-71

Crystal D. (1987). Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge

University Press. Cambridge.

Crystal (1992) :Introducing Linguistics .Penguin.

Crystal.D (2000). The Cambridge Encyclopedia .Cambridge University

Press.

Crystal, D. (2003). Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language.

Cambridge. CUP.

De Beaugrande, R. and Dressler.(1981).Introduction to text linguistics.

London.Longman.

Doff, Adrian. (1988) .Teaching English. Cambridge. Cambridge

University Press.

Donn, B. (1988). Teaching writing skills. Longman. London.

Dulay .H. Burt, M.and Krashen.S. (1982).Language Two. New York.

OUP.
102
Ede, L.& Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience addressed/audience invoked:
the role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy.
College Composition and Communication, Vol 35.

Edmondson (1981) .Spoken Discourse ,A model for Analysis

.Longman.

Eiler, M.A. (1983).Meaning and choice in writing about literature. In

:Fine,J.and Freedle,R.o.(eds).(1983) : Development issues in
discourse.Norwood Albex,169-223.

Emige, J. (1971):The composing Process of Twelfth graders. Urbana,

Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

------------- (1992). Inquiry Paradigms Weaknesses and Writing. College

Composition and Communication,33,64-75.

Enkvist, N.E. (ed)(1985). Coherence and composition :a symposium.

Abo: Abo Akademi Foundation.

En-naggar,B. (1994). A study of the Anaphoric Pronoun Reference as

assigned by EFL Learners. Contemporary Education
Journal(Al Tarbia Al Mu'saerah)32,25-48.

Fahnestock. (1983).Semantic and lexical coherence. College

Composition and Communication,34,400-416.

Fairclough (2003).Analyzing Discourse, Textual Analysis for Social

Research. Routledge-Taylor &Francis Group.
103
Farghal, M.(1992).Naturalness and the notion of cohesion in ESL
writing classes. IRAL.Vol xxx\1:45-50.

Fish, S (1980).Is there a text in this class? Cambridge :Harvard

University Press.

Flower, and Linda. (1989). Problem –solving Strategies for Writing,3rd

ed. New York. Harcourt.

Francies et al(2001).Analysis of undergraduate writing styles in the

context of Gender Achievement. Studies in Higher
Education.vol26 no 3,pp 313-237.

Friend, C.M.(1990). Using Inquiry To Improve Students' Critical

Thinking and Writing Skills on Essays Exams. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of South Central Modern
Language Association, San Antonio, TX.ERIC DATABASE.
Document No.ED334601

Fries, C, (1945).Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language.

Ann Arbor. University of Michigan Press.

Gahrab, A. M. (1996). An Analysis Written Performance Iraqi Students

at the University Level “Error analysis”. Unpublished PhD.

Givón, Talmy,(1994). Coherence in the Text and Coherence in the

Mind, in Coherence in Spontaneous Text, edited by Morton Ann
Gernsbacher and Talmy Givón, Amsterdam:

104
Greeall,G.M.(1980).Code Features of Examination Scripts: a
comparison between native speakers and non-native speaker
answers. ELT. Document.109:134-151.

---------------( 1980). The incidence and effects of coherence of marked

themes in interlanguage texts: a corpus-based enquiry”. English

for Specific Purposes 19: 99-113.

Giabir.D.M. (1995).Foreign Learners' Cohesive Devices: Analysis and

Evaluation of Foreign Learners' Knowledge of Cohesive Devices.

Unpublished M.A. Dissertation. university of Khartoum.

Hadra, O.Tawheeda. (1978). The Relative Clause in English and

Sudanese Spoken Arabic: contrastive analysis. Sudan Notes
and Records. Vol l1.x

Hal, H. (2000).Rules and Conventions of Academic Writing. London.

Queen Margaret University college Press.

Halliday, M.A.K & Hasan (1976) .Cohesion in English .Longman.

Halliday, M. K(1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward

Arnold. London.

Hartnett, Carolyn( 1986). ''Static and dynamic cohesion: signals of

thinking in writing''. In: Barbara Couture (ed). Functional

105
 Approaches to Writing: Research Perspectives. London:
Pinter.

Harrison (1999).Contemporary Composition Studies. Greenwood

Publishing Group.

Helen, B. (1994).Using Learners Writing for Oral Information Gap

Activities.Fourm.Vol 51.No 7.

Hilton.(1993). Cohesion in Latin. SA Journal of Linguistics,

Supplement 15, 41-54.

Hinkel (2005).Teaching Academic ESL Writing, Practical Technique in

Vocabulary and Grammar. Lawrence Erlbum Associates.

Hoey, Michael (1991a)."Another perspective on coherence and cohesive

Harmony". In: Eija Ventola (ed). Functional and Systemic
Linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter, 385-414.

Hoey, Michael (1991b). Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Hoey, Michael(1994) ."Signalling in discourse: a functional analysis of

a common discourse pattern in written and spoken English".
In: Malcolm Coulthard (ed). Advances in Written Text
Analysis. London: Routledge, 26-45.

106
Hubbard, E.H. (1989).Reference cohesion, conjunctive cohesion and
relational coherence in student academic writing.
UnpublishedPhD . Thesis: Unisia, Pretoria.

Hyl and, K. (2002). Teaching and Researching Writing.

Longman,London.

Irwin, Judth. (1986) ."Cohesion and Comprehension". AResearch

Review. Newark, DE: International Reading Association,31-
43

Jacobi. J Moran, G & (2007).Research In Basic Writing. Greenwood

Press. New York. West Port, Connecticut. London

Jago. C. (2002).Cohesive Writing: Why Concepts Is not Enough. New

York. Heinemann.

John .A.M.(1997). Text role and Context: Developing academic

literacies. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Johnes, A.M.(1986).Coherence and academic writing : Some definitions

and suggestions for teaching. TESOL Quarterly,20 247-265.

Karadawi, T. A. (1994). Deficiency of English Composition Writing in

the Sudanese Final (Third) Year of the Higher Secondary
School Analysis and Corrective Action. Unpublished PhD U
of K.

107
Kennedy (1998). Theorizing Composition. Greenwood Publishing
Group.

Kharma, N.& A. Hajjaj (1997). Errors in English Among Arabic

Speakers:Analysis and Remedy .York Press.

Khudson, R.E.(1992).Effects of task complexity on narrative writing.

Journal of Research and development in
Education,Vol.26,number 1:7-14.

Kies, D.(2001) . Coherence in Writing. London. The Hyper Text books.

Kintsch, Walter (1996). How readers construct situation models for

stories: the role of syntactic cues and causal inferences

In: Morton A. Gernsbacher and Talmy Givón (eds). Coherence in

Spontaneous Text. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 139-160.

Kroll,B.(2002).Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language

Writing. Cambridge. CUP

Labov,W.(1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia. University of

Pennsylvania Press .

Lautamatti. L(1978).Some Observations on Cohesion and Coherence in

Simplified Texts.(Eric Document Reproduction Service

No.ED,275191

108
Lauer, J .M. ,& Asher, J.W(1988).Composition research .Empirical
designs. New York: Oxford University Press.

Layton (1984). Rhetoric and Composition. Boynton Cook Publisher.

Lieber,P.E.(1981).Cohesion in ESL Students' Expository Writing. A

descriptive study. Doctoral thesis. New York University.
Ann Arbor: University Microfilms

Matalene,C.(1995).Contrastive Rhetoric: An American Writing

Teachers in China.

Mathews (1973). Practice, Plan and Write Guided Composition for

Students of English. Book Two :American Book Company.

McCarthy, and Carter(1994).Language as Discourse; Perspectives for

LanguageTeaching .Longman.

McCully. G.A. (1985). Writing Quality, Coherence and Cohesion,

Research in the Teaching of English 19,269-282.

Mclinn, Janet Betty(1988). Coherence and Cohesion in the Writing of

Eighth Grade Students. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
New Orleans.

Meyer, B. & Rice, G. (1984) .The Structure of Text. New York.

Longman.

109
 Moore, John et al. (1979). Reading and thinking in English:
Discoveringdiscourse. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Morgan. and Sellner , M.(1980). Discourse and linguistic theory .In:

Spiro ,R.J. et al. (eds) (1980): Theoretical issues in reading
comprehension. New york:Erlbaun:165-200.

Mourtaga,K.R (2004).Investigating Writing Problems Among

Palestinian Students Studying English as a Foreign
Language. Published PhD Dissertation.USA. University of
Mississippi.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge.

Cambridge University Press.

------------ (1993). Introducing Discourse Analysis .Penguin Group.

Nystrand, M. (1989). Asocial–interactive model of writing-written

communication, 6,66,85.

Parrot, M. (2002). Grammar for English Language Teachers.

Cambridge University Press.

Paul ,C.(2005).An Introduction to Discourse Analysis(2nd Ed).

Routledge-Taylor& Francis Group.

Pauling, C. Robinson (1988). Academic Writing: Process and Product.

HongKong.

110
Peyton, J. K. Staton, J. Richarardson & Wolform, W (1990). The
influence of writing task on ESL students’ written
production. Research in the Teaching of English ,24,142-
171.

Pritchard. R.G.(1981).A study of the Cohesion Devices in the Good and

poor Composition of Eleventh Graders. Dissertation Abstract

International.42,688A

Raimes,A. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing. New York .O.U.P.

Ramasawmy ,Narainsamy.(2004).Conjunctive Cohesion And Relational

R

Coherence in Students' Compositions. unpublished M.A.

Thesis. University of South Africa.

Rivers,W. (1981).Teaching Foreign Language Skills. University of

Chicago Press.

Scinto,L.F.(1977). Textual Competence : A preliminary Analysis of

Orally Generated Texts. Linguistics: An International
Review,Vol.194.pp5-34

Seliger, H.W. and Shohamy ,E .(1989).Second language research

methods. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Shaughnessy,M.P.(1977).Error and expectations. A guide for the

Teacher of Basic Writing. New York. Oxford University
Press.
111
Smith, Frank. (1982). Psycholinguistics and reading ,ed. Frank Smith.
New York . Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Smith, S. (1976). Writing versus Speech. English Language Teaching

Journal. XXX 1.1

Sonka, Amy L.(1982).Skillful reading: A text and work book for

students of English as a second language. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J. Prentice –Hall.

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D.(1986). Relevance. Oxford. Blackwell.

Spiegel,D.L. and Fitzgeral ,J.(1990).Textual Cohesion and Coherence in

Children's Writing Revisited. Research in the Teaching of
English, Vol 24,No1:48-66.

Spruiell. C & Zemach. E (2001). Writing and Grammar. McGraw-Hill

Professional.

Swan. M. (1997). Practical English Usage. Oxford university press.

Tate ,F.(1986). Teaching Composition. TCU Press.

Taylor (1989).The Student’s Writing Guide For the Arts and Social
Sciences. Cambridge University Press.

Tierney, R. & Monsental, J. (1983).Cohesion and Textual Coherence.

Research in the Teaching of English,17, 215-229.

112
Thornbury S. (1997). About English, Tasks for Teachers. Cambridge
university.

Van Dijk ,T.A. (1972).Some aspects of text grammar. The Hague:

Mouton.

-------------------- (1977). Text and context. London. Longman.

Weir, C. J. (1990). Communicative language Testing. London Prentic

Hall.

Widdowson, H. G. (1978).Teaching Language As Curriculum. Oxford

University Press. Oxford.

Witte. S; Cherry, R.(1986). Writing process and written products in

composition research. In C.R. cooper& S. Green
Baum(Eds), Studying writing Linguistic approaches(pp)
Beverley Hills Sage Publications.

Witte, Stephen, and Lester Faigly (1981).Coherence, Cohesion and

Writing Quality: College Comprehension and
Communication.149-205.

WWW.Wikipedia .org/wiki/Cronbach 27%s alpha categories:

Comparison of Assessment Psychometrics. Educational
Psychology Research Methods.

Yahya, A.(2000).Investigating Sudanese EFL learners Written

Discourse Competence. The Case of 4th Year English
113
 Students in Some National Universities. Un publish PhD.
University of Khartoum. Khartoum.

Younis, M. (1999). Awareness of Paragraph Writing Among Sudanese

University Students. A case study of Preliminary Medical
Students University of Khartoum Post Arabicization.
Unpublished MA. Thesis. University of Khartoum.
Khartoum.

Yue , Mmei-yun. (1989).Teaching efficient EFL reading. English

Teaching Fourm,27,2,pp.13-16.

Zamel, V. (1981). Writing : The Process of Discovering Meaning.

TESOL Quarterly 16.

114
 Appendices
Appendix(A)
TEST(1)

‫بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم‬

Sudan University of Science &Technology

College of Graduate Studies

Name:…………………
Respondent’s University……… Male( ) Female( )
Class:……………. Time: one hour
Write an essay of six paragraphs in which you describe and discuss
the academic problems at your university .You may think of these
points :
Teaching staff
Lectures
Courses
Exams
Lecture rooms
Library
…………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………

115
 Appendix(B)
Test( 2)

‫الرحيم بسم الله الرحمن‬

Sudan University of Science &Technology

College of Graduate Studies

Name:………………………..

Respondent’s University……… Male( ) Female( )

Class:…………….
Time: two hours

Q-1 Fill in the blanks with the correct connectors

I had one of the worst experiences of ……… life …………I witnessed a

terrible automobile accident a little over a year ago. I was on my way to
a party with my friend .It was about eight o’clock at night,………… it
was raining. . …………. we were in hurry to get to the ………..,my
friend was driving slowly …………. the he can not see well. We were
happily looking forward to seeing our friends ,talking about some of
them ,listening to music on the car radio ,and singing some of the
tunes .We were stopped for a red light at an intersection………….the
accident occurred. A car in the lane next to us sped into a truck
…………. was just pulling into the intersection from the cross street.
There was a terrible crush of metal, smashing of glass, and screaming
and moaning of people…………didn’t feel much like going to a party
…………. that.
116
Q-2 Fill in each blank with one of the following connectors

(particularly,however,before,as,thus,one,that,if,once,and,where,but)

The cafeteria at my university is …………. of the most over crowded

places on the campus. The service line is frequently so long that a
student gives up the idea of eating altogether. …………. he is patient
enough to wait for food , he is lucky if he can find a place to eat
……….. he leaves it .If he is …………. active ,he may work his way
through the masses to a spot ............... he can eat it before it is cold ,
………… seated,…………, he is likely to find the atmosphere filled
with other bodies , noise,………….dead air, that he loses his appetite.
He can not easily slip away at…………. point, either. Forcing his way
out of the cafeteria he is as miserable …………… working his way in .

Q-3 Put the following sentences in logical order so as to produce a

well connected paragraph .But remember to fill in the blanks with
the following vocabulary .

(After , first, your ,next , if , now second , you , then , begin )

1-……….Keeping in mind that the square to be cut must be usable for

the cat door ,carefully apply drill to an upper corner of the square
,making a hole large enough to insert the saw.
2-……..,select a door such as your kitchen door ,that can be scarified
for your pet .
3-…….,call your cat.
4-……. Need only follow these directions.

117
5-………. The sawing is complete ,remove the square cut from the door
,fasten the hinges to it at the top ,and reattach it to the door.
6-……….you like to keep cats in your house ,you can construction a
simple cat door in a standard door in your house .
7-…….cat door is complete .
8-…….. your operation with your pencil and ruler ,marking a square
,the approximate size of your cat in the lower middle of the door just
above its hard bottom frame.
9-………..you should acquire the necessary tools and materials ,which
are a pencil, a ruler,a drill, two small hinges and a hook an eye and a
screwdriver.
10-…….,fasten the hook and eye at the bottom of the square and to the
door beneath to permit the cat door to be locked , if necessary

Now write the paragraph

…………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………..
Q4-Join the following pairs of sentences from group (A) and group
(B)
to express the logical meaning .But first Use the given vocabulary to
fill the spaces at the beginning of group (B) sentences
Group(A)
1-When the value of the dollar rises, the price of gold tends to go down.
2-He argued with me ,insulted me, and then he tried to hit me.
3- Stella yawned as she looked at the ring ,the pearl necklace ,and the
diamond bracelet .
4-Dogs chase cats and cats chase mice.

118
5-Why are the children running into the house ,screaming at the top of
their voices and then running again slamming the door?
6-He was told to rewrite all of his compositions.
7-She likes the short man more than the tall man.
8-He failed the examination ,but was admitted to the college any way.
9-During winter ,Dennis has to stay inside the house much of the time or
wear very heavy clothing when he goes out side.
10-Most people lose a lot of time.
(These, he, in fact, but , sometimes ,there , therefore , this , as a result
, it )
Group(B)
1-………they catch them.
2-……..,I don’t do this.
3-………. good for some people and bad for others,
4-………. bored her.
5-…….was strange thing .
6-…….must be a reason for this.
7-……,he got tired of this.
8-……,I was very angry.
9-……. did not believe that at first.
10- ……no body cares.

Now write the full sentences in their logical order

…………………………………………………………………………

119
 Appendix(c)
‫الرحيم بسم الله الرحمن‬
Model Answers of Test( 2)

Q-1- Fill in the blanks with the correct connectors

Ihad one of the worst experiences of …my…… life …

when/as/because. I witnessed a terrible automobile accident a little
over a year ago. I was on my way to a party with my friend .It was
about eight o’clock at night,……and…… it was raining. . ……
though/although/despite……. we were in hurry to get to the ………
party.., my friend was driving slowly …because………. the he can
not see well. We were happily looking forward to seeing our friends
,talking about some of them ,listening to music on the car radio ,and
singing some of the tunes .We were stopped for a red light at an
intersection………when….the accident occurred. A car in the lane next
to us sped into a truck …which/that………. was just pulling into the
intersection from the cross street. There was a terrible crush of metal,
smashing of glass, and screaming and moaning of people………we…
didn’t feel much like going to a party …after/because of………. that.

Q-2 Fill in each blank with one of the following connectors

(particularly,however,before,as,thus,one,that,if,once,and,where,but)
The cafeteria at my university is …one………. of the most over
crowded places on the campus. The service line is frequently so long
that a student gives up the idea of eating altogether. …if………. he is
patient enough to wait for food , he is lucky if he can find a place to
eat ……before….. he leaves it . If he is …particularly………. active ,
120
he may work his way through the masses to a spot ....where........... he
can eat it before it is cold ,…once……… seated,……however……, he
is likely to find the atmosphere filled with other bodies , noise,……
and…….dead air, that he loses his appetite. He can not easily slip away
at……that……. point, either. Forcing his way out of the cafeteria he is
as miserable ………as…… working his way in .

Q-3 Put the following sentences in logical order so as to produce a

well connected paragraph .But remember to fill in the blanks with
the following vocabulary .

(After , first, your ,next , if , now second , you , then , begin )

1-……….Keeping in mind that the square to be cut must be usable for

the cat door ,carefully apply drill to an upper corner of the square
,making a hole large enough to insert the saw.
2-……..,select a door such as your kitchen door ,that can be scarified
for your pet .
3-…….,call your cat.
4-……. Need only follow these directions.
5-………. The sawing is complete ,remove the square cut from the door
,fasten the hinges to it at the top ,and reattach it to the door.
6-……….you like to keep cats in your house ,you can construction a
simple cat door in a standard door in your house .
7-…….cat door is complete .
8-…….. your operation with your pencil and ruler ,marking a square
,the approximate size of your cat in the lower middle of the door just
above its hard bottom frame.

121
9-………..you should acquire the necessary tools and materials ,which
are a pencil, a ruler, a drill, two small hinges and a hook an eye and a
screwdriver.
10-…….,fasten the hook and eye at the bottom of the square and to the
door beneath to permit the cat door to be locked , if necessary.

Answers:
1- 6(if)
2- 4 (you)
3- 9 (first)
4- 2 (second)
5- 8 (begin
6- 1 (next)
7- 5(after)
8- 10 (then)
9- 7 (your)
10- 3 (now)

Q4-Join the following pairs of sentences from group (A) and group
(B)
to express the logical meaning .But first Use the given vocabulary to
fill the spaces at the beginning of group (B) sentences

Group(A)

1-When the value of the dollar rises, the price of gold tends to go down.
2-He argued with me ,insulted me, and then he tried to hit me.
3- Stella yawned as she looked at the ring ,the pearl necklace ,and the
diamond bracelet .
122
4-Dogs chase cats and cats chase mice.
5-Why are the children running into the house ,screaming at the top of
their voices and then running again slamming the door?
6-He was told to rewrite all of his compositions.
7-She likes the short man more than the tall man.
8-He failed the examination ,but was admitted to the college any way.
9-During winter ,Dennis has to stay inside the house much of the time or
wear very heavy clothing when he goes out side.
10-Most people lose a lot of time.

(These, he, in fact, but , sometimes ,there , therefore , this , as a

result , it )

Group(B)

1-………they catch them.

2-……..,I don’t do this.

3-………. good for some people and bad for others,

4-………. bored her.

5-…….was strange thing .

6-…….must be a reason for this.

7-……,he got tired of this.

8-……,I was very angry.

9-……. did not believe that at first.

10- ……no body cares.

Answers

1/3 (this)
123
2/8 (therefore)

3/4 (these)

4/1(sometimes)

5/6 (there)

6/7(as aresult)

7/5 (it)

8/9 (He)

9/2(infact)

10/10 (but)

End

124
 Appendix ( D)
List of Academic Jury

Academic University
No. Name Degree Specialization
title
1 Omer Bushara PhD Educational Assistant Dongola
Ahmed Technology Professor University
2 Abdeljaleel A\ PhD TEFL Assistant Gazera
Allah Salih Professor University
3 Mahasin M. PhD Educational Assistant Dongola
Mohammed Technology Professor University
4 Mohamed Fatih PhD Applied Associated Khartoum
Braima Linguistics Professor University

125
 Appendix ( E )

Factor analysis for the second test items (statistical validity)

Question Item Extraction Question Item Extraction

1 o.840 21 0.894

2 0.682 22 0.773

3 0.805 23 0.841

4 0.846 23 0.812

5 0.843 25 0.920

6 0.704 3 26 0.841

7 0.849 27 0.792

8 0.848 28 0.882

1 9 0.838 29 0.917

10 0.937 30 0.928

11 0.924 31 0.849

12 0.803 32 0.685

13 0.872 33 0.878

14 0.883 34 0.778

15 0.860 35 0.891

16 0.748 36 0.883

2 17 0.857 4 37 0.870

18 0.630 38 0.791

19 0.818 39 0.688

20 0.829 40 0.889

Extraction method :principal component analysis

Appendix (F)

126
 Students scores in the first and second tests
First Second Total Sum
Student No. University Class Gender test test of of P=pass
of 60 40 100 F=failure
1. 1 3 1 27.4 9 36.4 F
2. 1 3 1 13.2 5 18.2 F
3. 1 3 2 9.8 6 15.8 F
4. 1 3 2 10.4 4 14.4 F
5. 1 3 2 14.8 3 17.8 F
6. 1 3 2 14.8 10 24.8 F
7. 1 4 2 22 10 32 F
8. 1 4 2 27.2 7 34.2 F
9. 1 4 2 23 7 30 F
10. 1 4 2 20 13 33 F
11. 1 4 2 14 3 17 F
12. 1 4 2 13.2 6 19.2 F
13. 1 4 2 20.8 14 34.8 F
14. 1 4 2 17.2 4 21.2 F
15. 1 4 1 22 5 27 F
16. 2 3 1 12 5 17 F
17. 2 3 1 6.2 12 18.2 F
18. 2 3 1 10.6 3 13.6 F
19. 2 3 1 12 22 35 F
20. 2 3 1 8.4 11 19.4 F
21. 2 3 1 12.2 7 19.2 F
22. 2 3 1 3.8 4 7.8 F
23. 2 3 1 4.8 6 10.8 F
24. 2 3 1 2.4 7 9.4 F
25. 2 3 1 3.8 2 5.8 F
26. 2 3 1 4.4 7 11.8 F
27. 2 3 1 1.6 6 7.6 F
28. 2 3 1 16.4 11 27.4 F
29. 2 3 1 17.8 3 20.8 F
30. 2 3 1 8.4 5 13.4 F
31. 2 3 1 9.2 3 12.2 F
32. 2 3 1 9.4 7 16.4 F
33. 2 3 1 7.6 3 10.6 F
34. 2 3 1 1 3 4 F
35. 2 3 2 4.8 13 17.8 F
36. 2 3 2 6 5 11 F
37. 2 3 2 2.8 8 10.8 F
38. 2 4 1 14 6 20 F
39. 2 4 1 14.6 8 22.6 F
40. 2 4 1 12.4 3 15.4 F
41. 2 4 2 12.8 11 23.8 F
42. 2 4 2 4.6 8 12.6 F
43. 2 4 2 1.2 1 2.2 F
127
44. 2 4 2 2.4 4 6.4 F
45. 2 4 2 5.6 9 14.6 F
46. 2 4 2 0 7 7 F
47. 3 3 2 25.2 24 49.2 F
48. 3 3 2 11.2 8 24.2 F
49. 3 3 2 22.8 9 31.8 F
50. 3 3 2 8.4 18 26.4 F
51. 3 3 2 16.4 2 20.4 F
52. 3 3 2 17.6 14 31.6 F
53. 3 3 2 16.2 9 25.2 F
54. 3 3 2 23 15 38 F
55. 3 3 2 28.4 10 38.4 F
56. 3 3 2 28.6 18 46.6 P
57. 3 3 2 25.2 8 34.2 F
58. 3 3 2 14.6 6 20.6 F
59. 3 3 2 15.6 20 35.6 F
60. 3 3 1 7.8 7 14.8 F
61. 3 3 1 7 12 19 F
62. 3 3 1 5.8 5 10.8 F
63. 3 3 1 15 8 23 F
64. 3 3 1 10.2 6 16.2 F
65. 3 3 1 14 9 23 F
66. 3 3 1 10 12 22 F
67. 3 3 1 12 10 22 F
68. 3 3 1 13.4 5 18.4 F
69. 3 3 1 10.2 6 16.2 F
70. 3 3 1 20 12 32 P
71. 3 3 1 7.2 4 11.2 F
72. 3 3 1 11.4 10 21.4 F
73. 3 3 1 16.4 17 33.4 F
74. 3 3 1 5.2 6 11.2 F
75. 3 3 1 11.8 4 15.8 F
76. 3 3 1 2.8 3 5.8 F
77. 3 3 1 3.2 7 10.2 F
78. 3 3 1 2.4 18 20.4 F
79. 3 4 2 16.4 7 23.4 F
80. 3 4 2 27 3 30 F
81. 3 4 2 26.2 4 30.2 F
82. 3 4 2 19 7 26 F
83. 3 4 2 24.4 18 42.4 P
84. 3 4 2 27.8 7 34.8 F
85. 3 4 2 24.2 7 31.2 F
86. 3 4 2 13.4 12 25.4 F
87. 3 4 2 21 16 37 F
88. 3 4 2 27.4 10 37.4 F
89. 3 4 2 21.8 6 27.8 F
90. 3 4 2 24.6 11 35.6 F
91. 3 4 2 10.6 8 18.6 F
92. 3 4 2 22.6 24 46.6 P
128
 93. 3 4 2 29.6 11 40 P
94. 3 4 1 15.4 19 34.3 F
95. 3 4 1 2.6 13 15.6 F
96. 3 4 1 21.8 19 40.8 P
97. 3 4 1 12.8 3 15.8 F
98. 3 4 1 14.6 11 25.6 F
99. 3 4 1 11 11 22 F
100. 3 4 1 12.6 7 19.6 F

Pass=40 scores

129
 Appendix (G)
Frequency of cohesive devices

Student Con- Sub-

University Class Gender Reference Lexical Ellipsis
No. junction stitution
1 1 3 1 20 26 25 0 0
2 1 3 1 7 18 5 0 0
3 1 3 2 8 10 7 0 0
4 1 3 2 4 9 10 0 1
5 1 3 2 10 7 12 0 0
6 1 3 2 18 10 10 0 0
7 1 4 2 13 9 15 1 1
8 1 4 2 30 7 9 3 1
9 1 4 2 11 12 13 0 0
10 1 4 2 12 17 9 0 0
11 1 4 2 5 11 6 0 0
12 1 4 2 9 8 11 0 0
13 1 4 2 20 10 15 0 1
14 1 4 2 18 12 9 2 1
15 1 4 1 12 17 10 0 0
16 2 3 1 24 8 10 2 1
17 2 3 1 12 8 6 0 0
18 2 3 1 10 10 7 0 1
19 2 3 1 3 8 2 0 0
20 2 3 1 4 7 2 0 0
21 2 3 1 17 9 10 0 1
22 2 3 1 15 10 4 1 0
23 2 3 1 3 8 2 0 0
24 2 3 1 6 6 4 0 0
25 2 3 1 12 7 2 0 0
26 2 3 1 11 6 3 1 0
27 2 3 1 12 9 4 0 0
28 2 3 1 10 18 7 0 1
29 2 3 1 5 6 10 0 0
30 2 3 1 10 12 7 0 0
31 2 3 1 26 8 14 0 0
32 2 3 1 10 7 15 0 0
33 2 3 2 9 8 13 0 0
34 2 3 2 4 6 9 0 1
35 2 3 2 30 17 13 0 0
36 2 3 2 4 6 10 0 0
37 2 3 2 9 10 15 1 1
38 2 3 2 4 3 6 0 0
39 2 4 1 8 18 8 2 1
40 2 4 1 29 12 12 0 0

130
41 2 4 2 27 12 12 0 0
42 2 4 2 17 10 5 0 0
43 2 4 2 4 5 11 1 1
44 2 4 2 8 5 12 0 0
45 2 4 2 17 10 5 1 1
46 2 4 2 43 11 10 0 0
47 3 3 1 3 3 6 0 1
48 3 3 1 7 8 10 0 0
49 3 3 1 7 7 13 1 0
50 3 3 1 5 7 11 0 2
51 3 3 1 19 12 9 0 0
52 3 3 1 8 20 11 1 1
53 3 3 1 8 8 10 0 1
54 3 3 1 9 9 7 0 1
55 3 3 1 7 8 3 0 0
56 3 3 1 17 16 12 0 1
57 3 3 1 11 16 12 0 0
58 3 3 1 5 20 7 0 0
59 3 3 1 10 12 7 0 0
60 3 3 1 10 7 6 0 0
61 3 3 1 15 10 7 0 0
62 3 3 1 12 10 6 0 1
63 3 3 2 7 5 3 0 0
64 3 3 2 5 4 7 0 0
65 3 3 2 6 12 7 0 1
66 3 3 2 8 11 13 0 1
67 3 3 2 6 5 10 0 0
68 3 3 2 7 5 3 0 0
69 3 3 2 5 11 2 0 0
70 3 3 2 8 7 10 0 0
71 3 3 2 12 12 4 0 1
72 3 3 2 5 7 9 0 0
73 3 3 2 3 4 5 0 0
74 3 3 2 8 12 3 0 0
75 3 3 2 9 7 11 1 1
76 3 3 2 10 5 6 0 0
77 3 3 2 9 7 3 0 0
78 3 3 2 12 10 11 0 0
79 3 4 1 16 11 7 1 2
80 3 4 1 15 11 6 0 0
81 3 4 1 4 10 5 0 0
82 3 4 1 3 9 3 0 0
83 3 4 1 8 6 7 0 1
84 3 4 2 12 5 11 0 0
85 3 4 2 10 8 12 0 0
86 3 4 2 7 7 10 0 0
87 3 4 2 6 4 7 0 1
88 3 4 2 5 5 9 0 0
89 3 4 2 3 6 14 0 0
131
 90 3 4 2 7 6 7 1 0
91 3 4 2 4 8 9 0 0
92 3 4 2 3 5 8 0 0
93 3 4 2 6 7 4 0 0
94 3 4 2 2 3 5 0 1
95 3 4 2 3 4 3 0 0
96 3 4 2 5 7 4 0 1
97 3 4 2 4 6 6 0 1
98 3 4 2 7 9 2 1 0
99 3 4 2 10 10 8 0 0
100 3 4 2 7 11 1 0 0
Total 1020 918 808 23 33

132
 Appendix ( H )
Students score in coherence and cohesion
Students No. University Class Gender Coherence Cohesion

1 1 3 1 14.2 13.2

2 1 3 1 6.2 7

3 1 3 2 5.2 4.6

4 1 3 2 4.4 6

5 1 3 2 8.4 6.4

6 1 3 2 8.2 6.6

7 1 4 2 12.4 9.6

8 1 4 2 16.6 10.6

9 1 4 2 13.8 9.2

10 1 4 2 9 11

11 1 4 2 11.6 2.4

12 1 4 2 7 6.2

13 1 4 2 12.4 8.4

14 1 4 2 11.4 5.8

15 1 4 1 14 8

16 2 3 1 5.2 6.8

17 2 3 1 2.4 3.8

18 2 3 1 6.8 3.8

19 2 3 1 6.4 5.6

133
20 2 3 1 2.2 6.2

21 2 3 1 7.6 4.6

22 2 3 1 1 2.8

23 2 3 1 3.6 1.2

24 2 3 1 1 1.4

25 2 3 1 3 0.8

26 2 3 1 1.4 3

27 2 3 1 0.4 1.2

28 2 3 1 9.2 7.2

29 2 3 1 12 5.8

30 2 3 1 5.8 2.6

31 2 3 1 6.6 2.6

32 2 3 1 5.8 3.6

33 2 3 1 6 1.6

34 2 3 1 0.8 0.2

35 2 3 2 2.2 2.6

36 2 3 2 5 1

37 2 3 2 1.6 1.2

38 2 4 1 12 2

39 2 4 1 14.4 0.2

40 2 4 1 8.2 4.2

134
41 2 4 2 9.4 3.4

42 2 4 2 3.8 0.8

43 2 4 2 1.2 0

44 2 4 2 1.8 0.6

45 2 4 2 5 0.6

46 2 4 2 0 0

47 3 3 2 11.8 13.4

48 3 3 2 4.6 6.6

49 3 3 2 13 9.8

50 3 3 2 2.6 5.8

51 3 3 2 9.6 6.8

52 3 3 2 11.6 6

53 3 3 2 9 7.2

54 3 3 2 14.6 8.4

55 3 3 2 17 11.4

56 3 3 2 17 11.6

57 3 3 2 15.2 10

58 3 3 2 4.8 9.8

59 3 3 2 8.2 7.4

60 3 3 1 3.2 4.6

61 3 3 1 4.2 2.8

135
62 3 3 1 3.6 2.2

63 3 3 1 8.6 6.4

64 3 3 1 7 3.2

65 3 3 1 5.6 8.4

66 3 3 1 4.4 5.6

67 3 3 1 3.6 8.4

68 3 3 1 5.4 8

69 3 3 1 3.6 6.6

70 3 3 1 10 10

71 3 3 1 3.2 4

72 3 3 1 4.4 7

73 3 3 1 6.6 9.8

74 3 3 1 2 3.2

75 3 3 1 8.6 3.2

76 3 3 1 2.8 0

77 3 3 1 1.4 1.8

78 3 3 1 1.8 0.6

79 3 4 2 8.6 7.8

80 3 4 2 18.2 8.8

81 3 4 2 16.4 9.8

82 3 4 2 11.4 7.6

136
83 3 4 2 12 12.4

84 3 4 2 14 13.8

85 3 4 2 14.2 10

86 3 4 2 5.4 8

87 3 4 2 11 10

88 3 4 2 15.4 12

89 3 4 2 12 9.8

90 3 4 2 13 11.6

91 3 4 2 4.4 6.2

92 3 4 2 12.6 10

93 3 4 2 18 11.6

94 3 4 1 8 7.4

95 3 4 1 1.8 0.8

96 3 4 1 12.6 9.2

97 3 4 1 6.4 6.4

98 3 4 1 8.4 6.2

99 3 4 1 6.6 4.4

100 3 4 1 7.2 5.4

137