Sentence Relations in the Writing of EFL Students at University Level

Sentence Relations in the Writing of
EFL Students at University Level
Asst.Prof.Dr.Fatimah R.Hasan\ Salahaddin University\ College of Languages
Dr.Anjuman Muhamad Sabir\ Salahaddin University\ College of Education for Human Sciences
211@
Abstract
This study aims at finding out how fourth-year students of English in
both Colleges of Languages and Education for Human Sciences use
cohesive devices to link sentences. It also aims at presenting suggestions to
help teachers of English give the most relevant material during their course
of teaching. Grammatical cohesion includes reference, substitution, ellipsis
and conjunction while lexical cohesion deals with reiteration and
collocation.
To achieve the aims of the study, a test was constructed in the form of
composition topics and submitted to a number of experts to determine its
validity. Then a pilot study was applied to a number of college students
prior to the final application of the test .The sample of the study was (100
test papers) chosen randomly from (138 test papers) of both Colleges.
For the sake of finding the reliability of scoring, (15) test papers,
randomly chosen from the sample of the study, were independently marked
by two scorers and then the coefficient correlation was computed by using
Pearson’s formula which was (0.91).
The results of the analysis reveal that some linguistic factors such as
complexity of the English system, intralingual factors and some learning
problems such as incomplete application of rules, strategy of avoidance,
ignoring the mechanics of writing, carelessness in writing composition,
poor practice and lack of formal teaching of cohesive devices are the
causes of students’ incorrect use of English cohesive devices.
Based on these results, a number of recommendations and suggestions are
presented.
1. Statement of the Problem
Throughout their teaching experience, the researchers have found
that cohesive devices are recurring problems in the students’ writing and
can be a major obstacle to their success in writing classes in general and
producing cohesive paragraphs in particular. The study does not deal with
the students’ use of cohesive devices within the sentence, but rather the
ways the students relate their sentences once to the topic sentence and then
to the paragraph.
2. The Aims
The study is an attempt to tackle one of the major problems facing
Kurdish learners in writing compositions. Therefore, it aims at :
1 finding out how students relate sentences by using cohesive devices;
@@@@@@@@
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani. Part B. No. 29 June 2010@
@@@

2 analyzing, classifying errors students make and attributing them to
their sources; and
3 Presenting suggestions and implications to help teachers of English
give the most relevant material in their teaching courses to solve the
overcome problem students face in relating senesces in their writing.
3. Procedures
The study is built on two procedures: theoretical and practical. The former
establishes the theoretical framework of this study, while the latter includes
the following:
1. A test has been used to check the students’ ability in using cohesive
devices; the test is given to (138) college students of both Colleges of
Languages and Education for Human Sciences.
2. The error analysis technique has been used to identify students’
errors in the above mentioned test and to categorize them according to
types and sub- types of error.
4. The Value of the Study
Since the study is concerned with difficulties encountered by
Kurdish -learners in using cohesive devices, it is hoped that its findings
will be of value to Kurdish learners of English as a foreign language. It is
also hoped that the findings of the study will be of help to teachers,
syllabus designers and material writers in devising the necessary ways
and means that will help the learners overcome these problems.
5. Theoretical Background
5. 1 The Concept of a Paragraph
A paragraph is a small unit of writing that focus on one
idea. This one idea is explained and developed in the paragraph.
(Ruetten1997:5)
According to Nash and Stacey (1980:41-2) the concept
of paragraph is aesthetic, or stylistic, or text functional. The aesthetics of
the paragraph is its appearance on the page, and its conveyed suggestions
of emphasis, rhythm and resonance as it is translated into an idea of
speech and delivery heard in the mind of the reader. The stylistics of the
paragraph appears in its internal pattern of connections and transitions
from sentence to sentence, and in its management of variations in sentencelength
and sentence-type. The functional value of the paragraph is its role
as the frame for certain content, a phase in an argument, and an account of
a step in a procedure.
A paragraph generally has three parts: a topic sentence, support and a
conclusion. The topic sentence tells the topic (what the paragraph is about)
and the writer’s attitude or idea about the topic. The supporting part of the
paragraph explains, describes, or develops the main idea given in the topic
sentence. The conclusion of the paragraph usually summarizes or
comments on the main idea. (Ostrom and Cook1993:1)
5.2 Elements of a Paragraph
To be as effective as possible, a paragraph should contain each of the
following:
5.2.1Unity
A paragraph should be unified. In a unified paragraph, all the
sentences relate to the topic and develop the controlling idea. If a sentence
@@@@@@@@@@@Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani. Part B. No. 29 June 2010@ 212@

or idea in a paragraph does not relate to the main idea, the paragraph
lacks unity. The sentences that do not relate to the main idea should be
taken out of the paragraph and perhaps developed in another paragraph.
5.2.2 Cohesion
The reader will also be able to follow a paragraph
easily if the paragraph has a smooth flow. Smooth flow means that one
sentence leads easily into the next sentences; the sentences are wellconnected.
This characteristic of a paragraph is called cohesion. One of
the most significant works that have contributed to our explicit
understanding of cohesion is Halliday and Hassan .According to Halliday
and Hassan (1976:4), the concept of cohesion is a semantic one, referring
to “relations of meaning” that exist within the text, and it “occurs where
the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of
another”. Cohesion is expressed “partly through the grammar and partly
through the vocabulary” (1976:5). Beginning with Halliday and Hassan
many researchers (Brown and Yule1983,McCarthy1991 and Cook
1994)have identified several types of cohesion that interact in pointing to
link between sentences. There are two types of cohesion: grammatical and
lexical cohesion. Halliday and Hassan's grammatical cohesion falls within
four types: reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction.
In general the examples cited in this study will be of cohesion across
sentence boundaries, since the effect is more striking and the meaning is
more obvious: cohesive ties between sentences stand out more clearly
because they are the only source of texture, whereas within the sentence
they are the structural relations as well.
5.2.2.1 Reference
Reference is the relation between an element of the text and something
else
by reference to which it is interpreted in the given sentence. Reference is a
semantic relation in which a meaning is specified through the identification
of a referent; that is to say, instead of being interpreted semantically in
their own right, they make reference to something else for their
interpretation, e.g.: (Halliday and Hasan 1976:31)
5.2.2.2 Substitution
Substitution is the replacement of one item by another. It serves as a
place-holding device, showing where something has been omitted what its
grammatical function would be; thus in (1) 'ones' functions as head in the
nominal group and replaces biscuits.
1. These biscuits are stale. Get some fresh ones. (Halliday and
Hasan 1976:297)
As a general rule, substitution is subject to a very strong grammatical
condition. The original item and the substitute item must have the same
grammatical function. In the above example, ones and biscuits are both
head in the nominal group. In (1) the item" ones" does not simply mean
"biscuits" but "biscuits" which are different (fresh) from the "biscuits"
(stale). In other words, there is dissimilarity between the substitute item
and the substitute one, and this dissimilarity is due to the two pairs of
contradictory adjectives. And it is this difference which is said to make
substitution different from reference, in reference the presupposed and the
presupposing items have the same referent. Whereas in substitution there is
always some significant difference between presupposing and presupposed
items. Thus, reference is used when one wants to refer to the same thing,
while substitution is used when one wants to refer to a different thing.
213@
@@@@@@@@
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani. Part B. No. 29 June 2010@
@@@

Therefore, reference signals 'the same member' unless marked as different
by the use of comparison; while substitution signals 'another member of the
same class' unless marked as identical by same. (Halliday 1985: 302).
McCarthy (1991:46) makes another difference between substitution and
reference, stating that substitutes can be modified ( ‘ a red one’, ‘ the one
in the corner’), while pronouns cannot be modified in this way (*a red it,
*the it in the corner).
5.2.2.3 Ellipsis
Closely related to substitution is the cohesive device of ellipsis,
where there is omission of a second mention of items which can be
understood as implicit. This grammatical process avoids unnecessary
repetition and is more economical. Ellipsis has a cohesive effect because it
is only used when a word or phrase is completely predictable that the
speakers/writers assume what is missing from the context and the missing
information is automatically filled in:
2. Haworth is best in winter. Hawes in summer. (Jeffries 2006:186)
The second sentence here is linked to the first by the fact that we know
that the verb and complement “is best” is missing, such ellipsis as a
cohesive mechanism across sentence boundaries is most frequent in
informal and spoken language styles.
5.2.2.4Conjunction
The fourth and final type of grammatical cohesion is conjunction.
Conjunctive elements are not" devices for reaching out into the
preceding or following text "like reference, ellipsis or substitution.
Rather they are cohesive" by virtue of their specific meaning”
(Halliday and Hasan 1976: 226).
Thus, conjunction creates cohesion by relating sentences and
paragraphs to each other by using words from the class of conjunction.
This can be additive, adversative, causal, temporal or continuative.
5.2.2.5 Lexical Cohesion
In lexical cohesion the relationship of cohesion is realized by
vocabulary, i.e. by word. The discussion of lexical cohesion deals with two
varieties: reiteration and collocation. The difference between the two is
that while the former preserves reference between two related items, the
latter does not, the former is classified into four types: same word
(repetition), synonym (or near synonym), super ordinate and general
word. (Halliday and Hasan 1976:274)
Consider the illustration of each of these in turn
6. Data Collection
6.1 The Sample
The sample of the study is one hundred fourth year students:
fifty from the College of Languages and fifty from the College of Education
for Human Sciences in the University of Salahaddin for the academic year
(2006-2007).
The students are chosen randomly from one hundred and thirty eight
students of both colleges .The reason for choosing the fourth year students
for this test is that the fourth year students are supposed to have sufficiently
mastered the writing process after taking courses in Guided Composition,
Free Composition, and Essay Writing in the college.
6.2 The Tool
6.2 .1 The Test
A test of (5) topics was designed and the students were asked
@@@@@@@@@@@Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani. Part B. No. 29 June 2010@ 214@

to write on one of the topics (Appenix1) to find out to what extent Kurdish
learners of English make errors in using cohesive devices. Regarding the
selection of topics, it is necessary, to ensure that students are able to write
something on the topics they are presented with. The topics should be seen
by the writers as realistic, appropriate and feasible.(Weir1993:135).
However, once the students are ready to write free
compositions on carefully chosen realistic topics, then composition writing
can be a useful tool. It provides the students with an opportunity to
demonstrate their ability to organize language material and to use their
own words and ideas. In this way, composition tests provide a degree of
motivation which many objective-type test fail to provide.
(Heaton1988:137)
Basically, the topics of the test are taken from the following books:
1. College Composition by F.A. Razzak and H. Al-Hassan(1981).
2. Models for Writer by A. Rosa and P.Eschholz(1998) .
3. The practical Writer with Reading by E.P. Bailey and P.A.Powl (1989).
4. English Grammar and Composition by J.E. Warriner and
F.Griffith(1973).
6.2.2 The Test Validity
Following Valette (1967) validity and reliability are two essential
characteristics of a good test. ( compare also Harrison (1983); Madsen
(1983);Carroll and Hall (1985);Underhill(1987); Heaton (1988);
Hughes(1989);
Bachman(1990);Weir(1993);Brown(1996);Brown(2000);Davies(2000);Mc
Namara(2000);Schmitt(2002);and Singh(2005). They state that the validity
of a test is the extent to which the test measures what is supposed to
measure.
Face validity means the way the test looks right to other testers,
teachers, moderators and testees. (Heaton 1988:159)
For the purpose of the present study, face validity was used. This
type of validity was achieved by exposing the test to a group of experts:
Professor Dr. Muhammad Ma’ruf Fattah, Assistant professor Dr. Fatimah
Rashid Hasan, Dr. Suhaila Hameed Majeed and Assistant professor Mr.
Salam Nawxosh. All of them agreed that such topics are both simple and
general enough for the students to write on.
6.3 The Pilot Study
A pilot study has been conducted to:
1. estimate the time needed for the final administration of the test;
2. have a clear idea about arrangements and requirements for the final
administration of the test; and
3. make any necessary modifications in the test and determine its
suitability.
After the test had been validated, it was tried out on thirty students
randomly chosen for the purpose of the pilot study and asked to write on
one of the topics approved by the experts to find out how Kurdish
learners of English relate sentences by using cohesive devices
The findings of the pilot study revealed that:
1. All the students were able to write on the topics.
2. They were able to write from 100 to 150 words.
3. Students face difficulty in using cohesive devices and their errors fall
under the following categories: reference, substitution, ellipsis,
conjunction and lexical cohesion.
215@
@@@@@@@@
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani. Part B. No. 29 June 2010@
@@@

6.4 The Reliability of Scoring
Ellis (2003:349) states that a test is reliable if it gives the same results
when
administrated on different occasions or scored by different people.
Thus, within the concept of reliability the two types of consistency are
involved: the reliability of the test itself and the reliability of scoring of the
test, referred to as test/re-test and mark-re-mark reliability respectively by
(Heaton 1988).For the purpose of the study, the reliability of the scoring
has been used. It is described as the consistency of scoring by two or more
examiners or the same examiner on different occasions. From the sample
of the study, fifteen test papers were randomly chosen. They were, then,
independently corrected by two scorers, the researcher and another one
(Mrs.Basima Othman) assistant instructor at the English Department, The
two sets of scores were obtained and Pearson’s coefficient correlation was
computed between them. Reliability coefficient was (0.91) which
Valette(1967:32)considers a high positive correlation.
6.5 The Test Administration
The test was applied to one hundred fourth year students during
the first term of the academic year (2006-2007). On 9.1.2007, the test
was administered at the English Department of the College of Education
for Human Sciences. On 10.1.2007, the same test was administrated at the
English Department of the College of Languages. The test papers were
distributed and the instructions were read. The students were told to
answer, then the test papers were collected and scored. The results are
quantified, tabulated and presented in table (1).
7. Results and Discussion
7.1 The Identification and Classification of Errors:
The total number of cohesive devices correct as well incorrect, are
counted in students’ compositions, as shown in (Table 1).Then students’
errors are identified and ranked into five categories (See Table 3). A look
at Table 3- shows that the total number of the uses of reference is 279 and
the number of incorrect use is207 i.e. %40.27. Moreover, the total number
of the uses of substitution is 11 and the number of incorrect use is 5.i.e.
%0.97, while the total number of the uses of ellipsis is 20 and the number
of incorrect use is 16 i.e. %3.11 of the uses are incorrect. Furthermore, the
total number of the uses of conjunction is 260 and the number of incorrect
use is 205, i.e%.39.88.of the uses are incorrect. Finally, the total number of
the uses of lexical cohesion is 433and the number of incorrect use is 81, i.e.
%15.75. The statistical analysis in table -8- shows that the most frequent
errors made by the sample are in the use of Reference. Reference takes the
first rank among other types of cohesive devices since it forms % 40.27of
the errors. The errors in conjunction form %39.88 and take the second
rank. While the errors in lexical take the third rank and form %15.75.The
errors in ellipsis form%3.11and take the fourth rank whereas the errors of
substitution form %0.97 and take the fifth rank. Three types of statistical
comparisons are made in this chapter. First the two factors of cohesion,
lexical and grammatical are compared with each other and presented in a
separate table. The second type of comparison is performed among the four
categories of correct, incorrect grammatical devices. The third statistical
@@@@@@@@@@@Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani. Part B. No. 29 June 2010@ 216@

comparison shows the t-test within lexical, grammatical devices. Then
P.value (probability value) is found between groups of correct and
incorrect cohesive devices. The p.value of f-test among groups of correct
grammatical is 1.02-09 which is highly significant and the p.value of f-test
among groups of incorrect grammatical is 5.36-30 and it is also highly
significant. The p.value of t-test between correct grammatical and lexical is
0.0004 which is highly significant and the p.value of t-test between
incorrect grammatical and lexical is 3.68-20 which is highly significant.
Again the p.value within grammatical devices is found. First, the p.value of
t-test between incorrect conjunction and incorrect reference is 0.946 which
is non-significant i.e. the students made errors in both widely. Then, the
p.value of t-test between incorrect conjunction and incorrect ellipsis is
2.13-19 which is highly significant. Moreover, the p.value of t-test between
incorrect conjunction and incorrect substitution is 6.52-21 which is highly
significant .Furthermore, the p.value of t-test between incorrect reference
and incorrect ellipsis is 1.41-11 which is highly significant. The p.value of
t-test between incorrect reference and incorrect substitution is 1.29-12
which is highly significant. Finally, the p.value of t-test between incorrect
ellipsis and incorrect substitution is 0.021 which is significant. The p.value
of t-test between correct grammatical devices is also found. The p.value of
t-test between correct conjunction and correct reference is 0.31 and it is
non-significant. The p.value of t-test between correct conjunction and
correct ellipsis is 1.34-06 and it is highly significant and the p.value of t-
test between correct conjunction and correct substitution is 3.65-06 which
is highly significant. The p.value of t-test between correct reference and
correct ellipsis is 5.10-06and it is highly significant. The p.value of t-test
between correct reference and correct substitution is 9.69-06 and it is
highly significant and the p.value of t-test between correct ellipsis and
correct substitution is 0.58 and it is non-significant as illustrated in the
following tables:
Table -1-
The p.value of T-test between Correct Grammatical and Lexical Devices
Groups Count Sum P.Value between Groups
Grammatical 100 137
Lexical 100 352
Total 489 0.0004 HS
Table -2-
The p.value of T-test between Incorrect Grammatical and Lexical
Devices
Groups Count Sum P.Value between Groups
Grammatical 100 433
Lexical 100 81
Total 514 3.68-20 HS
217@
@@@@@@@@
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani. Part B. No. 29 June 2010@
@@@

Cohesive
Devices
Table3-
Frequencies of Cohesive Devices
Incorrect Percentage
of
Incorrect
Correct Percentage
of Correct
Total Percentage
of
Incorrect
and
correct
Reference 207 %40.27 72 %14.72 279 %27.81
Conjunction 205 %39.88 55 %11.24 260 %25.92
Lexical 81 %15.75 352 %71.98 433 %43.17
Ellipsis 16 %3.11 4 %0.81 20 %1.99
Substitution 5 %0.97 6 %1.22 11 %1.09
Total 514 %100 489 %100 1003 %100
Below are the different types of errors made by the students in each
category:
7.1.1 Reference
In some of the students’ paragraphs there are some examples where the
correct reference item is not used to refer to an item in the paragraph. The
dominant reference type is demonstratives (%59.85 of total occurrences of
reference)followed by personal forms(%40.14 of total occurrences of
reference) The prominent use of pronouns appears to be due to their role
as head nouns, primary information for reference ,whereas definite articles
and demonstratives are modifiers.
3.Early marriage creates problems for parents and children.
Girls should reach a suitable age to marry .Because if she
could not understand her desire and her way she could not
make a good family.
4. A typical day in the year 2006.
I have not seen a friend for a long time when I saw her, I was
really happy, because I loved her and she brought some
presents for me. So I kept it till now.
In(3)and(4) the reference items “she” and “it” respectively refer to the
preceding plural items “girls”, “some present” but the correct reference
items to be used are “ they” in (3) and “them” in (4)
Table- 4-
The Classification of Incorrect and Correct Use of Reference
Types of Incorrect Percentage Correct Percentage
Reference
of Incorrect
of Correct
Demonstrative 116 %56.03 51 % 70.83
Personal 91 %43.96 21 % 29.16
Total 207 %100 72 % 100
7.1.2 Substitution
Substitution is found to have fewer occurrences in the students’
compositions. Accordingly, substitution seldom occurs in these writings,
except that several students demonstrate incorrect use of substitution.
@@@@@@@@@@@Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani. Part B. No. 29 June 2010@ 218@

5. Early marriage creates problems for parents and children.
Sometimes may be the woman and men are not ready to get
married. But they did that’s why they should wait till they are
graduate and they are ready for this.
6. The purpose of college education is to ……. .
The students must be clever and active students. But
unfortunately students at our college and other colleges are
passive one.
In (5) the verbal substitution (did) is incorrectly used instead of (do).
Since the tense is present its verbal substitution should be present too, thus
“do” should be used instead of “did”. In (6) “passive one” is wrongly used
to substitute, “students”, since it differs from the presupposed items in
number
The types of substitution and their relative frequencies of errors
observed in the writing samples are given in the following tables
Table- 5-
The Classification of Incorrect and Correct Use of Substitution
Types of Incorrect Percentage Correct Percentage
Substitution
of Incorrect
of Correct
Nominal 4 %80 3 %50
Verbal 1 %20
Clausal 3 %50
Total 5 %100 6 %100
7.1.3 Ellipsis
Ellipsis has far few occurrences than conjunction, reference, and
lexical cohesion. Errors that result from ellipsis involve the incorrect use of
elliptical item in place of the missing item in the structure of the
paragraph. Moreover, the students could not establish ellipsis between any
two sentences correctly. Below are some examples:
7. A football game is always exciting.
People are familiar with knowing famous countries in football such
as Spanish League, British League. Every has many clubs which they
compete to win the cup.
8. Early marriage creates problems for parents and children.
Of course each of us must build our selves to produce a glad family.
But I would say our country full of problem. Every has a large
obstacle for life.
In (7) and(8) the students use “every” elliptically to refer to
“country” and “problem” respectively, “every” is used wrongly since it
can not be used as head of an elliptical nominal. So, the correct elliptical
item to be used is “each” in (7) and (8) respectively. The types of ellipsis
and their relative frequencies of errors observed in the writing samples are
given in the following table:
219@
@@@@@@@@
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani. Part B. No. 29 June 2010@
@@@

Table- 6
The Classification of Incorrect and Correct Use of Ellipsis
Incorrect Percentage Correct
of Incorrect
Types of
Ellipsis
Percentage
of Correct
Nominal 16 %100 4 %100
Total 16 %100 4 %100
7.1.4 Conjunction
1-Incorrect Use: some of the students’ compositions show that the students
are unable to use the correct conjunctive when linking two sentences, such
as the following:
9. Getting to college on time is a problem.
Traffic jam is also another problem. We live outside city and
this makes us have problem, if I get before hour and half
before usual time of starting lectures I seldom be there. Every
day I try my best to reach at college early. Thus I fail.
10.Getting to college on time is a problem.
When we get up we must take a taxi to go to college .As we
know today we have problem with petrol. However the drivers
want too much money. When we ask them to take us.
In (9) the fourth sentence expresses a contrast (that the student tries
his best to reach at college early thus he fails). Therefore, the correct
conjunctive that should be used to show this contrast is ‘but’ or
“however”. In (10) the third sentence respectively expresses a result (that
the drivers want too much money) for causes indicated earlier in the
second and first sentences respectively (that we have problem with petrol).
Therefore, the correct conjunctive that should be used to show these
cause/effect successions is “therefore” instead of “however” The types of
conjunctions and their relative frequencies of errors observed in the
writing samples are given in the following table:
Table -7-
The Classification of Incorrect and Correct Use of Conjunction
Types of Incorrec Percentage of Incorrect Correct Percentage
Conjunctions t
of Correct
Causal 78 %38.48 25 %45.45
Adversative 53 %25.85 15 %27.27
Addition 49 %23.90 7 %12.72
Temporal 25 %12.19 8 %14.54
Total 205 %100 55 %100
7.1.5 Lexical cohesion
Lexical cohesion far outstrips reference, substitution, ellipsis and
conjunction and comes to the conclusion that at least forty percent of
textual ties are lexical. In fact, lexical ties are impossible to quantify
accurately, because there is nothing to prevent a lexical item forming a
relationship with more than one other item. Our observations of students’
@@@@@@@@@@@Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani. Part B. No. 29 June 2010@ 220@

work do not find lexical cohesion a prominent problem as students do not
intentionally choose words which are not associated with or are distantly
related to what they are writing on. It is natural for any writer to use words
which are semantically related when they are writing on a particular
subject either in the form of collocation or reiteration.
The total number of lexical cohesion in students’ composition is (433)
and the number of incorrect use is (81) i.e. %18.70 of the uses are
incorrect and the number of the correct use is (352)i.e.%81.29 of the uses
are correct. Moreover, the number of the correct reiteration is (258),(230)
of these is the same word(repetition).Concerning the rest of the devices
including near-synonym, antonym and super ordinate ,they have not been
used widely by the students. It is to be pointed out that only (4) uses of
synonyms, (6) uses of antonyms and (18) uses of superordinates have been
used. And the number of incorrect reiteration is (81) that is, some of the
students are unable to use general words and items that are repeated
correctly. While the number of correct collocation is (94) and there is no
incorrect collocation. Then P-value is found between groups of correct and
incorrect lexical cohesion. The p-value of f-test among groups of correct
lexical cohesion is 4.60-06 which is highly significance .And the p-value of
f-test among groups of incorrect is 2.52-06 it is also highly significance.
The following tables illustrate this:
Table -8-
The p.value within Groups of the Correct Lexical Devices
Groups Count Sum P.Value within Groups
Reiteration 100 258
Collocation 100 94
4.60-06
Total 352
HS
Table -9-
The p.value within Groups of the Incorrect Lexical De
Groups Count Sum P.Value within Groups
Reiteration 100 81
Collocation 100 -
2.52-06
Total 81
HS
Below are some of the students’ errors in reiteration:
11. Getting to college on time is a problem.
Arbil city now becomes the city of business. So many
companies come hereto develop our country. But this cause
crowdness to a place.
12. Getting to college on time is a problem.
In all colleges the lecture starts at 8.30.We want to arrive at
8.30.But we have many problems to get to place .It is a
problem for all students when we are coming to college.
In the examples above, the students make errors in using general
nouns “place” in (11-12) without being accompanied by the reference item
“the” .A general noun should always be accompanied by the reference
item “the”, in which the whole complex “the + general noun” functions
like an anaphoric reference item to “Arbil” in (11)and “college” in (12)
221@
@@@@@@@@
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani. Part B. No. 29 June 2010@
@@@

Table-10-
The Classification of Incorrect and Correct Use of Reiteration
Types of Incorrect Percentage Correct Percentage of
Reiteration
of Incorrect
Correct
Same word 72 % 88.88 230 % 89.14
(repetition)
Synonym - 4 %1.55
Antonym - 6 %2.32
Superordinate - 18 %6.97
General word 9 % 11.11 -
Total 81 %100 258 %100
7.2 Interpretations of Errors
The major reasons of the relatively high number of errors in English
cohesive devices may be due to the following points:
1. Intralingual transfer and common learning strategies like
overgeneralization and simplification were found to account
for the majority of learners’ errors. The dominant patterns of
developmental errors in cohesion involved inaccurate
reference across the language background groups: unclear
reference and misuse of conjunction, ellipsis and
substitution.
13. A football game is always exciting.
Nowadays you watch TV to see the match between two teams
.We see it has excitement and dramatic. When he encourages
his country or his team.
14. Early marriage creates problems for parents and
children. Unfortunately we have this in our society and most of
the time it caused to divorce. Because before marriage they do
not think about so many things. They decided by their feeling
and this marriage will fail.
15. The purpose of college education is to ……. .
The students must be clever and active students. But
unfortunately students at our college and other colleges
are passive one.
2. Overgeneralization i.e. the irregularity of the English Language
makes the students overgeneralise the use of pronouns in number and
gender. Most errors occur when the antecedent is singular and the
pronoun referring to it is plural, or vice versa.
16. A football game is always exciting.
When world cup in 2006 held in German. It shows what kind
of spirit when everyone encourage his country seriously.
They are discovered that football leads to peace between a
lot of country or nations.
4. Another reason of errors is faulty teaching material or techniques.
Sometimes textbooks or syllabuses are set in a way that does not
meet the actual needs of the students. This will result in an
inadequate knowledge of the foreign Language leading to the
@@@@@@@@@@@Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani. Part B. No. 29 June 2010@ 222@

commitment of many errors by the learners such as students’
misuse and confuse in using conjunctions.
17. Getting to college on time is a problem.
Traffic jam is also another problem. We live outside city
and this makes us have problem, if I get before hour and
half before usual time of starting lectures I seldom be
there. Every day I try my best to reach at college early.
Thus I fail.
5. Poor teaching is another source of errors. It results in a shaky
command of the language. Carelessness of the students too plays
an important role in the appearance of many errors. Very often
students either do not concentrate while they use the new language
or use it in a rush. In both cases they make many errors.
18. Getting to college on time is a problem.
At last I hope that our country will advance. Our
problems will solve-And government creates good roads and
streets. And reconstruct the old one.
8. Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from the results of the
present study:
1. The errors in grammatical devices are more frequent than errors of
lexical cohesion (see table 2). This indicates that students do not
find lexical cohesion a prominent problem as they do not
intentionally choose words which are not associated with or are
distantly related to what they are writing on. It is natural for any
student to use words which are semantically related to what they
are writing on a particular subject either in the form of collocation
or reiteration.
2. Students' writings show a tendency of using a considerably high
number of lexical items to achieve cohesion. As for the types of
lexical cohesion, same words (repetitions) are more frequent than
synonyms, antonyms, super ordinates and general words. In fact,
only (4) synonyms, (6) antonyms and (18) super- ordinates have
been used in their writing.
3. Reference has the second highest frequency in students'
compositions and the greatest problem for the subjects of research
since it forms42.27 %of the errors.
4. Conjunctions come third in frequency in students' composition and
fractionally less problematic than reference since they occupy
39.88% of the errors. As for the sub-types of conjunctions, the
students' writings show preference for using a considerably higher
number of causal conjunctions and a considerably lower number of
temporal conjunctions.
5. Avoidance in using ellipsis and substitution can be clearly seen in
students' writings since they occur least frequently than the rest of
the devices due to incorrect application of rules, ignoring the use
of mechanics of writing, or due to lack of formal teaching and
lack of practice.
6. Intralingual transfer and common learning processes such as
223@
@@@@@@@@
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani. Part B. No. 29 June 2010@
@@@

overgeneralization and simplification on the part of the learners,
incorrect application of rules, ignoring the use of mechanics of
writing, carelessness in writing composition and poor practice
were found to account for the majority of learners’ errors.
7. The inefficiency of the students’ writing shows that these
students have not applied the techniques of writing of the good
paragraph in their writing. This might reveal that these students
regard the composition courses-The Guided Composition Course,
the Free Composition Course and the Essay Writing Course-as
mere courses which they have to pass in one way or another, and
not as courses that will enable them to acquire the skill of proper
writing which they will have to use and develop in the various
writing activities that they do.
8. Most students’ writings lack a clear structure and they often
lack a sense of cohesion. At sentence level there are often
coherence and accuracy problems, they still have various language
weaknesses by committing some elementary errors when writing
the sentence and this can be easily seen in their paragraphs. There
are various grammatical, spelling, vocabulary and punctuation
errors that the fourth-year students of English are supposed not to
commit at this advanced stage of learning. In other words, since
the students have not mastered the structure of the English
sentence, they will naturally find it difficult to control the structure
of the English paragraph. As a result of failing to observe accepted
writing conventions they produce writing which is unsatisfactory
and ineffective.
9. Pedagogical Implications
The study of students’ errors could provide teachers invaluable
information on the errors that require remedial work. Such
information would be the starting point for the teachers to focus their
attention on those areas that actually need further reinforcement. As
such, time and effort will not be wasted on teaching areas which pose
minor problems to the students. For instance, it is clear in this study,
that the errors in the use of reference require more attention than the
others. Teachers should then be more aware of these problems and
provide the necessary follow up work to check the problem areas as
discussed earlier. Based on the results of the study, the following
recommendations are made in order to reduce the number of errors
made by the students in their written English:
1. Students need to be aware of the problems of using linkers in their
writing and therefore, they need more rigorous training which would
oblige the students to think through their argument first and then
decide how they might reinforce it with linkers. Despite the
importance of cohesion in the creation of textuality, teachers must
not forget to help their students keep a balanced perspective in the
use of cohesive devices in general and in the use of conjunctions or
connectives in particular. It must be made explicit to students that
cohesion does not result from simply scattering large number of
@@@@@@@@@@@Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani. Part B. No. 29 June 2010@ 224@

conjunctions and other categories of cohesive devices all over their
texts; they should be shown how connectives used selectively can
signal different types of logical relations between sentences. More
importantly, students should also be shown how implicit relations
can be expressed without the use of overt markers .An effective way
may be to let them read natural texts in which unmarked relations
abound. As a result, students will not have the tendency to over use
connectives. They will also be able to interpret and express implicit
cohesive and conjunctive relations effectively in reading and writing
text.
2. English learners should learn to employ clear ways of thinking and
proper cohesive devices on which cohesion is constructed. Clarity of
thought makes the writing smooth and keep the relevance to the
subject. Thus suggesting it would be effective to introduce textual
cohesion to students at an early stage in composition writing classes.
3. The teachers should offer students model texts to analyse, paying
attention to the student’s choice of words, such as connectives,
personal pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, reiteration and
collocation. In this way, students can start to identify within a
passage the various logical and linguistic links between sentences.At
the same time, students need to examine the writer’s organization of
ideas, in other words, the writer’s arrangements of text; which
sentence best expresses the main idea of the text? What supporting
details are given to develop the main idea? How is the text
organized?
4. After they have acquired an adequate vocabulary and fully
comprehended the model texts, students are perhaps ready to
embark upon their writing process with a heightened sense of
awareness of cohesion and coherence. Once compositions have been
completed under guidance from the teacher, students can be shown
where proper corrective devices are needed at the paragraph level.
The more this process is practiced, the more students can familiarize
themselves with the techniques available to create cohesion.
5. More emphasis needs to be given to the teaching of cohesion and
coherence. Although students are taught the basic techniques of
writing (writing topic sentences, thesis statement, paragraphing) in
great detail, students are not able to apply the skill when it comes to
actual writing. Thus, there is a need to revise or review these skills
with reference to students’ own errors. Teachers may employ
various strategies by using their own students’ work as samples, for
students learn better when they see how corrections are made on
their composition.
6. Students lack practice because of large classes and lack of
opportunity to write, review for themselves, review for peers, correct
their own mistakes, and improve their writing by adding new ideas
taken from group discussion in class. This encourages writing as
process more than writing as product, and this needs small classes.
225@
@@@@@@@@
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani. Part B. No. 29 June 2010@
@@@

References
Bachman,L.F.(1990).Fundamental Considerations in language
Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bailey,E.P.and P.A.Powl (1989).The Practical Writer with
Readings(2 nd ed.).New York:Holt,Rinehart and Winston.
Brown,H.D.(2000).Principle of Language Learning and
Teaching.(4 th .ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall Regents.
Brown,J.D. (1996). Testing in Language Programs. Upper saddle
River, N .J.:
Prentice Hall Regents.
Carroll,B.J.and P.J.Hall(1985). Make your Own Language Tests: A
Practical Guide to writing Language Performance Tests. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Davies,P.(2000).Success in English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis,R.(2003). Task-based Language Learning and
Teaching.Oxford;Oxford University Press.
Eysenck,M.W.and C.Flanagan(2000).Psychology for Advanced
Level.New York: Psychology Press.
Harrison, A. (1983). A Language Testing Handbook. London:
Macmillan Press London.
Heaton,J.B.(1988).Writing English Language Tests. A Practical
Guide
for Teachers of English as a Second or Foreign Language. ( 2nd.ed.)
London. Longman.
Madsen,H.S.(1983).Techniques in Testing.Oxford:Oxford University
Press.
McCarthy,M.(1991).Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Razzak,F.A. and H. Al-Hassan(1981).College Composition.
Baghdad:The Institute for the Development of English Language
Teaching in Iraq.
Rosa,A.and P.Eschholz(1998).Models for Writers.(6 th .ed.).New York:
ST.Martin’s Press.
@@@@@@@@@@@Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani. Part B. No. 29 June 2010@ 226@

Schmitt,N.(2002).An Introduction to Applied Linguistics. London:
Arnold
Singh,Y.K.(2005).Psychology in Education. New Delhin:
A.P.H.Publishing
Corporation.
Underhill,N.(1987).Testing SpokenLanguage.Cambridge:Cambridge
University
Press.
Valette,R.M.(1967).ModernLanguage
Testing:AHandbbook.NewYork:Harcourt,
Brace and World.
Warriner,J.E.and F.Griffith(1973).English Grammar and
Composition: Complete Course. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Weir,C.J.(1993)Understanding and Developing Language Tests.
Hemel
Hempstead:Prentice Hall International.
Appendix -1-
The Test
Write a composition of (150-200) words on one of these topics:
1. The purpose of the College Education is to--------
2. Getting to college on time is a problem.
3. Early marriage creates problems for parents and children.
4. A football game is always exciting.
5. A typical day in the year 2006.
227@
@@@@@@@@
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani. Part B. No. 29 June 2010@
@@@

الخلاص ة
يهدف هذا البحث الى دراسة وسائل الترابط بين الجمل في آتابات طلبة اللغة الانكليزيه المرحلة
الرابعة في آليتي اللغات والتربية للعلوم الانسانية.و تقديم الحلول والمقترحات الخاصة بطرائق
التدريس المثالية لتدريس هذه الاشارات.‏ ويشمل الترابط النحوي استعمال الاشارة
بين جمل الفقرة.‏ اما
الحذف والربط
الابدال
والتكرار(‏reiteration‏).‏
علاقة الترابط المعنوي فتغطي المتلازمات
و قدم البحث عدة عناوين للكتابة عنها تم عرضها على لجنة من المختصين لمعرفة صدق محتواها
وبعد ذلك تم اجراء دراسة استطلاعية وطبق الاختبار النهائي على طلبة قسمي اللغة الانكليزيه
جميعهم.‏
اما عينة البحث فتتألف من مائة ورقة اختبار فقد تم اختيارها وفقآ للاسلوب العشوائي من
بين مجموع اوراق الاختبار والبالغة ورقة اختبار.‏
ولاجل التعرف على ثبات التصحيح تم اختيار ورقة اختباروبصورة عشوائية من عينة
البحث وتم بعد ذلك تصحيحها بصورة مستقلة من مصححين ‏(الباحثة نفسهاو مصححة اخرى)‏ و تم
حساب معامل الثبات بين اوراق الاختباروذلك بتطبيق معادلة بيرسون والذي آان
واظهرت النتائج ان الاخطاء لايمكن ان تعزى جميعها الى عامل واحد مثلآ تأثيرلغة الام وانما
يعزى ظهورها الى جملة من الاسباب مثل اهمال الطلبة في آتابة الانشاء،‏ وقلة الخبرة في
الاستخدام الصحيح لاشارات التنقل وستراتيجية التجنب.‏
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
,(reference)
.(٠٫٩١)
(conjunction) (ellipsis)
(collocation)
(١٥)
(١٠٠)
(١٣٨)
(substitution)
@@
óàbä@ñómŠíØ
@ô’ói@ ðäbïibmíÔ@ n’Ša†óÜ@ ç‡äbÙÜ@ ñŒa‹àb÷@ ðäbåïèŠbØói@ ðäbïà@ óÜ@ óîòìóåîím@ ãó÷@@@@@@@@@
@çbØóïïmóîbÐŽì‹à@ ónäaŒ@ ñò†ŠòìŠóqì@ çbàŒ@ ñ‰ïÜŽíØì솊óè@ ðàòŠaíš@ ðÜŽíq@ õïÝÙåï÷
@ómb‚ò†@ 熋؋ŽïÐŽíi@ Œbïå“Žïq@ Žõ‡äóèZóîòìó÷~óîòìóåîím@ @ ãó÷@ ñóÙî†@ ðÙŽï−bàb÷NòìónïÜŽíØò†
@NðibmíÔ@ óåïîóia‡äbØóŠŽíØ@ ðäbïàóÜìb−í@ ñŠbïäaŒ@ æî‹mŠŽìŒ@ pa†ò†@ çbîbníàbà@ ðmóàŠbîóØììŠ
@ç‡äbm‹Ø@ì (substitution)@´‚@î‹i@HreferenceI@òˆbàb÷@óÜ@óïïnî‹i@”ïäbàŽîŠ@ðä‡äbÙÜ
@òŠbiìì†@óÜ@oŽî†@ÚŽïq@ðÙïÙŽïÜ@ðä‡äbÙÜ@a‡ÙŽïm@bØ@óÜ@(conjunction)@òìóånói@ì@(ellipsis)
@@N (collocation)H@òìó䆋؎üØI@ðmóïŽîŠìbè@L(@ reiteration) @ìòìó䆋Ø
@çb’bqNa†òŠaíi@ìóÜ@çaŽïÜ@ÛóîòŠbàˆ@óiaŠ†óØòìó䆋ÙïÔbm@~H슆I@ðäbåŽïénò†óiüióØòìóåîím
@ðäbïibmíÔ@ŠóóÜ@ðîbmŽíØ@ñòìó䆋ÙïÔbm@@@ðäa‡àb−ó÷@”Žïq@pbèŠbØói@ìa‹Øìò‹îóq@@ñòìó䆋ÙïÔbm
@ðØóîòíï’ói@ óØ@ óîòìó䆋ÙïÔbm@ ñìaŠóq@ HQPPI@ óØòìóåîím ðÝràbN@ ñïÝåï÷@ ðäbàŒ@ ð’ói
@~•òìó䆋ÙnaŠ@ñŽïu@ïäaŒŽíi@NçaŠ†‹Žî‰jÜóè@çbØòìó䆋ÙïÔbm@ñìaŠóq@HQSXI@ñüØóÜ@ðØóàòŠ
@çóîýóÜì@çaŠ†‹Žî‰jÜóè@çbØòìó䆋ÙïÔbm@ñüØóÜ@ðØóàòŠ@ðØóîòíï’ói@ói@òìó䆋ÙïÔbm@ñìaŠóq@HQUI
@@Na‹ØŠóóÜ@çbîŽíØínÑì@æuóÜóè@H‹m@ðÙïØóîìŠò‰ŽîímIòìóåuóÜóèìì†
@ðäbàŒ@@ñŠóîŠbØ@üi@béäóm@çbïibmíÔ@ðäbØóÜóè@ú‹Øbä@óØ ñóàb−ó÷@ãó÷@ón“îó@óØòìóåîímì
@ïìíäóÜ@çbïibmíÔ@ðàó‚ŠónàóØ@óäaìóÜ@òìónŽî‹Žïò†@ŠbØüè@@ÚŽïÜóàüØüi@íÙÜ@ói~òìónŽî‹Žïi@Úîa†
@çbØóïîòìóånaí@ óäb“ïä@ ðäbåïèŠbØóióÜ@ ì@ µìíäóÜ@ çbïibmíÔ@ ðäíàŒó÷@ ãóØì@ ´’Ša†
@@Nòìónî‹míØbä@ðÙïnØa‹iì@ìb−íØ@ðØóîòíï’ói@ómóibi@ãó÷@òì@óÜ@óÙu@oaŠ@ðØóîòíï’ói
@@@@@@@@@@@Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani. Part B. No. 29 June 2010@ 228@