COHESION IN VIETNAMESE EFL ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING: AN ANALYSIS OF TYPES AND ERRONEOUS USE OF COHESIVE DEVICES
Vol. 134 No. 6B (2025), Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities
Vol. 134 No. 6B (2025)

COHESION IN VIETNAMESE EFL ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING: AN ANALYSIS OF TYPES AND ERRONEOUS USE OF COHESIVE DEVICES

Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities
https://doi.org/10.26459/hueunijssh.v134i6B.7705
Published 2025-06-21
Long Viet Le
University of Foreign Languages and International Studies, Hue University
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5527-4810
Nguyen Thi Bao Trang
University of Foreign Languages and International Studies, Hue University
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5285-7255
Van Huy Nguyen
University of Foreign Languages and International Studies, Hue University
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6826-6188
PDF

Keywords

cohesive devices
argumentative writing
EFL writing
Vietnamese students

Abstract

The leveling up of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) academic writing necessitates multiple criteria, among which clarity and coherence earn a place. Such a criterion can be fulfiled by means of cohesive devices (CDs), tools that connect texts semantically. While numerous international studies have examined CDs in EFL writing, research focusing on Vietnamese tertiary contexts, especially in argumentative essays, is limited. This study, therefore, was set out to explore the use of CDs in argumentative writing by English-majored students in a university in Vietnam. A manual analysis was accordingly conducted on 30 argumentative essays, written under a 45-minute time constraint during a writing course, to investigate the frequency of CDs and pinpoint their usage errors. The results shed light on the distribution of CDs, wherein grammatical CDs reigned dominance. Among these, reference devices were the most frequently used items, followed by conjunctions. Advanced cohesive forms like substitution and ellipsis were scant, and lexical cohesion was confined to basic reiteration, predominantly repetition. Regarding errors, unnecessary addition occurred most often, trailed behind by misuse, omission, and redundant repetition. Reference, especially demonstrative reference, represented the majority of errors. These patterns are indicative of a reliance on foundational cohesion strategies and thus suggest instructional needs for broader CD usage to enhance writing coherence and ultimately academic proficiency.

https://doi.org/10.26459/hueunijssh.v134i6B.7705
PDF

References

  1. Abdelreheim, H. M. H. (2014). A corpus-based discourse analysis of grammatical cohesive devices used in expository essays written by Emirati EFL learners at Al Ghazali School, Abu Dhabi (Master’s thesis). The British University in Dubai. https://www.proquest.com/openview/b69d5ce8760acadaf6f191f074533577/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2026366&diss=y
  2. Ahmad, Z. (2019). Differences between Students’ Linguistic Knowledge and Text Production Ability: A Case of the Use of Cohesion as a Resource of Texture in Academic Writing. Online Submission, 9(2), 55-63. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v9n2p55
  3. Alarcon, J. B., & Morales, K. N. S. (2011). Grammatical cohesion in students’ argumentative essay. International Journal of English and Literature, 2(5), 114–127. https://academicjournals.org/journal/IJEL/article-full-text-pdf/64155281112
  4. Allard, L., & Ulatowska, H. K. (1991). Cohesion in written narrative and procedural discourse of fifth-grade children. Linguistics and Education, 3(1), 63-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898(91)90024-D
  5. Ayub, Seken. K., & Suarnajaya, W. (2013). An analysis of the cohesion and coherence of students’ English writings at the second grade of SMAN 1 Labuapi West Lombok. e-Journal Program Pascasarjana Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Program Study Bahasa Inggris, 1(3), 1–13. https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/118208-EN-an-analysis-of-the-cohesion-and-coherenc.pdf
  6. Bhatti, M. S., Iqbal, A., Parveen, S., & Javaid, Z. (2017). Error Analysis and its Role in Language Learning Skills. Journal of Managerial Sciences, 9(3), 85-96. https://qurtuba.edu.pk/jms/default_files/JMS/special_edition/EIM/07%20(AIC-EIM%202017)%2085-96%20Muhammad%20Safdar%20Bhatti.pdf
  7. Bolton, K., Nelson, G., & Hung, J. (2003). A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7(2), 165-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.7.2.02bol
  8. Bui, H. P. (2022). Vietnamese EFL Students’ Use and Misconceptions of Cohesive Devices in Writing. Sage Open, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221126993
  9. Bui, P. H., Nguyen, N. Q., Nguyen, T. L., & Nguyen, T. V. (2021). A cross-linguistic approach to analysing cohesive devices in expository writing by Asian EFL teachers. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 27(2), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2021-2702-02
  10. Bui, T. N. (2011). Cohesive devices in reading texts in the book Tieng Anh 12 - Ban co ban (PhD thesis). University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam. http://repository.vnu.edu.vn/handle/VNU_123/39977
  11. Cao, T. H. N. (2012). An analysis of cohesive devices in the ESP textbook on accounting at University of Labor and Social Affairs (PhD thesis). University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam. http://repository.vnu.edu.vn/handle/VNU_123/39979
  12. Chanyoo, N. (2018). Cohesive devices and academic writing quality of Thai undergraduate students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(5), 994-1001. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0905.13
  13. Cho, H. Y., & Shin, J. (2014). Cohesive devices in English writing textbooks and Korean learners’ English writings. English Teaching, 69(1), 41–59. http://journal.kate.or.kr/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/kate_69_1_3.pdf
  14. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
  15. Corder, S. P. (1974). Error Analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition. London: Longman. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315836003
  16. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97
  17. Crompton, P. (2011). Article errors on the English writing of advanced L1 Arabic learners: The role of transfer. Asian EFL Journal professional Teaching Articles, 50, 4-34. https://asian-efl-journal.com/PTA/February-2011-Crompton.pdf
  18. Crossley S. A., McNamara D. S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(2), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01449.x
  19. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. In Ohlsson, S., & Catrambone, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 984–989). Cognitive Science Society. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6n5908qx
  20. Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). The development and use of cohesive devices in L2 writing and their relations to judgments of essay quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.003
  21. Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., Allen, L. K., Guo, L., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Linguistic microfeatures to predict L2 writing proficiency: A case study in automated writing evaluation. Journal of Writing Assessment, 7(1), 1–16. http://www.journalofwritingassessment.org/article.php?article=74
  22. Dastjerdi, H. V., & Samian, S. H. (2011). Quality of Iranian EFL Learners’ Argumentative Essays: Cohesive Devices in Focus. (2011). Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 65. https://www.richtmann.org/journal/index.php/mjss/article/view/10782
  23. Diep, G. L., & Le, T. N. D. (2024). An Analysis of Coherence and Cohesion in English Majors’ Academic Essays. International Journal of Language Instruction, 3(3), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.54855/ijli.24331
  24. Evans, V. (1998). Successful Writing Proficiency. Express Publishing. https://www.academia.edu/41182789/Successful_Writing_Students_Book_Profficiency
  25. Feliks, T., Huan, E., Ota, G., & Rahayu, G. (2024). The use of cohesive devices and the quality of student writing: Their relationship. The International Journal of Language and Cultural (TIJOLAC), 6(2), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14184318
  26. Feng, T. (2003). An investigation of cohesive errors in the writing of first-year NUS students from PRC (Unpublished master’s thesis). National University of Singapore. https://fr.scribd.com/document/518262032/An-Investigation-of-Cohesive-Errors-in-the-Writing-of-PRC-Tertiary-EFL-Students
  27. Field, Y., & Oi, Y. (1992). A comparison of internal cohesive conjunction in the English writing of Cantonese speakers of English. RELC Journal, 23(1), 15-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829202300102
  28. Fu, Z. (2006). What to follow “Make” and what to follow “Do”: Corpus-based study on the de-lexical use of “make” and “do” in native speakers’ and Chinese students writing. US-China Education Review, 3(5), 42–71. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED497475
  29. Geraldine, V. (2020). Error analysis on the use of conjunction in students’ writing recount rext at vocational state school 41 Jakarta. Journal of Language and Literature, 6(2), 97-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.35760/jll.2018.v6i2.2488
  30. Granger, S., & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and nonnative EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15(1), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1996.tb00089.x
  31. Guizu, Z. (2005). The Cohesive Knowledge and English Writing Quality of College Students. CELEA Journal. 28(3), 24-30. http://www.celea.org.cn/teic/61/61-24.pdf
  32. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315836010
  33. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203431269
  34. Hamed, M. (2014). Conjunctions in argumentative writing of Libyan tertiary students. English Language Teaching. 7(3), 108-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n3p108
  35. Hinkel, E. (2001). Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts. Applied Language Learning, 12(2), 111–132. https://www.elihinkel.org/downloads/cohesion.pdf
  36. Hoang, T. M. (2011). An analysis of cohesive devices in reading texts in English 11 (Master’s thesis). Vietnam National University, Hanoi. http://repository.vnu.edu.vn/handle/VNU_123/39988
  37. James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. London: Longman. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315842912
  38. Janjua, F. (2012). Cohesion and Meanings. Canadian Social Science, 8(2), 149–155. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/j.css.1923669720120802.2060
  39. Kang, J. Y. (2009). Referencing in a second language: Korean EFL learners’ cohesive use of references in written narrative discourse. Discourse Processes, 46(5), 439-466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959638
  40. Khalil, A. A. ., & Abu-Ayyash, E. A. . (2023). Lexical Cohesive Devices and English Writing Quality. Journal of Advances in Linguistics, 14, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.24297/jal.v14i.9534
  41. Kwan, L. S., & Yunus, M. M. (2014). Cohesive Errors in Writing among ESL Pre-Service Teachers. English Language Teaching, 7(11), 130-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n11p130
  42. Lee, I. (2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: A classroom inquiry. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 135-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00065-6
  43. Liu, M., & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 33(4), 623–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.02.002
  44. Ludji, I., Hambandima, E. S., & Christiani, Y. N. (2022). Cohesive devices used in students’ argumentative essay; A discourse analysis. Voices of English Language Education Society, 6(1), 14-24. https://doi.org/10.29408/veles.v6i1.4969
  45. Mawardi, A. (2014). An analysis of the cohesion and coherence of students’ narrative writings in the English language education department of Nahdlatul Wathan Mataram University. Journal FKIP of Gunung Rinjani University, 8(1), 80–90. https://www.academia.edu/31337939/
  46. Meisuo, Z. (2000). Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities. RELC Journal, 31(1), 61–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820003100104
  47. Memar, Z. A., & Kamyabi Gol, A. (2021). A study on cohesive devices in the writing samples of advanced Persian learners. Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 10(2), 53-81. https://doi.org/10.30479/jtpsol.2020.13069.1480
  48. Murtiana, R. (2019). An Analysis of Interlingual and Intralingual Errors in EFL Learners’ Composition. JURNAL EDUCATIVE: Journal of Educational Studies, 4(2), 204-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.30983/educative.v4i2.2544
  49. Na, Y.-H. (2011). Cohesive devices in CMC texts produced by American and Korean EFL writers. Linguistics Research, 28(3), 743-771. http://isli.khu.ac.kr/journal/content/data/28_3/14.pdf
  50. Nasser, A. N. A. (2017). A study of errors in the use of grammatical cohesive devices in argumentative texts written by Yemeni EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Research, 3(10), 172-176. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327967785_A_study_of_errors_in_the_use_of_grammatical_cohesive_devices_in_argumentative_texts_written_by_Yemeni_EFL_learners
  51. Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.2.223
  52. Neuner, J. (1987). Cohesive ties and chains in good and poor freshman essays. Research in the Teaching of English, 21(1), 92–103. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171102
  53. Ngo, T. T. N. (2010). An analysis of prominent grammatical cohesive devices in online news discourse in English by Vietnamese translators. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 26(1), 51–59. https://jfs.ulis.vnu.edu.vn/index.php/fs/article/view/2534
  54. Nguyen, D.-H. (1997). Vietnamese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/loall.9
  55. Nguyen, Q. T., Nguyen, T. B. T., & Nguyen, V. Q. N. (2023). Use of cohesive devices in paragraph writing by EFL students at English language centers in Vietnam. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 39(3), 152-169. https://doi.org/10.63023/2525-2445/jfs.ulis.5099
  56. Nguyen, T. B. T., Phan, Q. N., Nguyen, T. T. B., & Thai, T. P. D. (2022). The use of the high frequency verb make in opinion essays by Vietnamese EFL students. Hue University Journal of Science: Social Sciences and Humanities, 131(6), 21-39. https://doi.org/10.26459/hueunijssh.v131i6C.6717
  57. Nguyen, T. Q. (2018). English article choices by Vietnamese EFL learners. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 34(2), 74–89. https://doi.org/10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4248
  58. Nindya, M. A., & Widiati, U. (2020). Cohesive devices in argumentative essays by Indonesian EFL learners. Journal on English as a Foreign Language, 10(2), 337-358. https://doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v10i2.1949
  59. Nirwanto, R. (2021). The adoption of cohesive devices (CDs) in the Indonesian students’ opinion essays. Premise: Journal of English Education and Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.24127/pj.v10i1.3239
  60. Nurhidayat, E. F., Apriani, E., & Edy, S. (2021). The analysis of cohesive devices used by tertiary English students in writing English paragraphs. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 8(4), 70-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v8i4.2443
  61. Ong, J. (2011). Investigating the use of cohesive devices by Chinese EFL learners. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 11(3), 42-65. https://asian-efl-journal.com/PDF/September-2011.pdf
  62. Oroji, M. R., & Ghane, A. (2014). The investigation of cohesive ties in English Book 3 of Iranian high school. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 136, 144–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.304
  63. Pham, P. L. (2012). A study on lexical cohesive devices from some reading texts of the coursebook English for Business Study and pedagogical implications for teaching English for third-year students at Trade Union University (PhD thesis). University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam. http://repository.vnu.edu.vn/handle/VNU_123/39943
  64. Rahman, Z. A. A. (2013). The use of cohesive devices in descriptive writing by Omani student-teachers. SAGE Open, 3(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013506715
  65. Rassouli, M., & Abbasvandi, M. (2013). The effects of explicit instruction of grammatical cohesive devices on intermediate Iranian learners’ writing. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2(2), 15–22. https://european-science.com/eojnss/article/view/137
  66. Saadat, M., & Alavi, S. Z. (2018). The effect of type of paragraph on native and non-native English speakers’ use of grammatical cohesive devices in writing and raters’ evaluation. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 24(1), 97-111. http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2018-2401-08
  67. Sanczyk, A. (2010). Investigating argumentative essays of English undergraduates studying in Poland as regards their use of cohesive devices (Master’s thesis). University of Oslo. http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-25258
  68. Schneer, D. (2014). Rethinking the argumentative essay. Tesol Journal, 5(4), 619-653. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.123
  69. Scott & Danielle. (2010). Cohesion, Coherence, and Expert Evaluations of Writing Proficiency. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society. 984-989. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6n5908qx
  70. Siregar, J., Nurlela, N., & Zein, T. T. (2023). An Analysis of Cohesive Devices in EFL Students’ Essay Writing. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics, 8(1), 39-53. https://doi.org/10.21462/ijefl.v8i1.577
  71. Sompong, M. (2014). Error Analysis. Thammasat Review, 16(2), 109-127. https://sc01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tureview/article/view/40756
  72. Song, M. & Xia, W. (2002). Yingyu xiezuo zhong yupian xianjie shouduan yu yupian jiaoxue—Dui fei yingyu zhuanye dayi benkesheng haozuowen yu cizuowen de tongji fenxi [Combination of textual cohesive ties and textual teaching for the teaching of English writing—a statistical analysis of the good and poor compositions written by non-English major freshmen]. Foreign Language World, 6, 40–44. https://caod.oriprobe.com/articles/21950673/Combination_of_textual_cohesive_ties_and_textual_teaching_for_the_teac.htm
  73. Todd, R. W., Khongput, S., & Darasawang, P. (2007). Coherence, cohesion and comments on students’ academic essays. Assessing writing, 12(1), 10-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2007.02.002
  74. Uru, O. B., Sudirman, A., & Nugroho, A. D. (2021). Exploring cohesions in EFL academic writing: A state of the art on the study of cohesions. Elsya: Journal of English Language Studies, 3(2), 141-149. https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v3i2.6730
  75. Warna, D., Wijaya, B., Sartika, E., & Riznanda, W. A. (2019). Cohesive devices used in argumentative essays of undergraduate EFL students in Indonesia. ENGLISH FRANCA: Academic Journal of English Language and Education, 3(2), 125. http://dx.doi.org/10.29240/ef.v3i02.1164
  76. Yang, W., & Sun, Y. (2012). The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguistics and Education, 23(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.09.004
  77. Zahara, R., Yusuf, Y. Q., Samad, I. A., & Singh, C. K. S. (2023). Cohesive Devices in EFL Students’ Essays and Problems Encountered during Writing. Indonesian Research Journal in Education, 7(1), 61-76. https://doi.org/10.22437/irje.v7i1.23128
  78. Zhang, M. (2000). Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities. RELC Journal, 31(1), 61–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820003100104
  79. Zoghipour, E., & Nikou, F. R. (2016). The impact of explicit instruction of lexicogrammatical devices on EFL learners’ writing fluency and complexity. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 1(3), 677–689. https://doi.org/10.26655/mjltm.2016.3.1