COHESION AND COHERENCE OF ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING OF THE STUDENTS WITH NATURAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE MAJORS.
COHESION AND COHEEENCE OF AEGUMENTATIVE
WEITING OF THE STUDENTS WITH NATUEAL AND
SOCIAL SCIENCE MAJOES
A THESIS
Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
By:
BETHAEIA br. SEMBIEING PANDIA
Eegistration Number : 2123121006
ENGLISH AND LITEEATUEE DEPAETMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND AETS
STATE UNIVEESITY OF MEDAN
2017
ABSTRACT
Pandia, Betharia br. Sembirinn. Renistration Number: 2123121006. Cohesion
and Coherence of Arnumentative Writinn of the Students with Natural and
Social Science Majors.
The objectives of this study were to investigate the way of how Natural and Social
Science students used cohesion and coherence in their argumentative writing. The
data needed to achieve the objective was the students’ writing that was elicited by
assigning them to write two different topics related to their interest namely
National Examination and Wearing Uniform. The cohesion was analyzed
following Halliday and Hasan (1976); while the coherence was analyzed through
the use of three principles of coherence by Carlos and Ceballos in Garing (2014)
and text structure by Knapp and Watkins (200l). In addition, it was also aimed at
seeking the influence of their majors on their using of cohesion and coherence.
This study revealed that both Natural and Social Science students had different
ways of using cohesion and coherence for each topics: National Examination and
Wearing Uniform. It was concluded that Natural Science students had more
cohesive and coherent writing on National Examination topic; while Social
Science students presented more cohesive and coherent writing on Wearing
Uniform topic. However, their majors did not influence the use of cohesion and
coherence, but it was influenced by their interests on the given topics.
Keywords: cohesion, coherence, writing, argumentative text
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. ix
LIST OF APPENDICES...................................................................................... x
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1
A. The Background of the Study ..................................................................... 1
B. The Problem of the Study ........................................................................... 4
C. The Scope of the Study............................................................................... 4
D. The Objective of the Study ......................................................................... 4
E. The Significance of the Study ..................................................................... 5
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................................. 6
A. Theoretical Framework .............................................................................. 6
1. Writing ................................................................................................. 6
a. The Nature of Writing..................................................................... 6
2. Genre ................................................................................................... 12
a. Text Structure ................................................................................. 12
b. Lexicogrammar............................................................................... 13
3. Argumentative Writing ......................................................................... 15
a. Generic Structure ............................................................................ 17
b. Language Features .......................................................................... 17
c. Factors Affeecting Argumentation .................................................. 18
4. Cohesion .............................................................................................. 19
a. The Nature of Cohesion .................................................................. 20
b. Factors Underlying Cohesion .......................................................... 21
c. Grammatical Cohesion.................................................................... 21
1) Reference .................................................................................. 21
2) Substitution ............................................................................... 23
3) Ellipsis ...................................................................................... 24
4) Conjunction .............................................................................. 25
iv
d. Lexical Cohesion ............................................................................ 26
5. Coherence ............................................................................................ 27
a. The Nature of Coherence ................................................................ 28
b. Factors Underlying Coherence ........................................................ 28
B. Major of the Students and Their Argumentative Writing Quality ................ 30
C. Relevant Studies ......................................................................................... 32
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................. 36
A. Research Design ......................................................................................... 36
B. Data and Technique of Data Collection ...................................................... 36
C. The Subjects of the Study ........................................................................... 37
D. The Procedure of Research Design ............................................................. 37
E. The Technique of Data Analysis................................................................. 38
CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSION ............. 39
A. Ways of Using Cohesion by IPA and IPS Students ................................... 40
1. Ways of Using Reference ..................................................................... 40
a. Personal Reference ......................................................................... 40
b. Demonstrative Reference ................................................................ 41
2. Ways of Using Conjunction .................................................................. 42
a. Additive Conjunction ...................................................................... 42
b. Adversative Conjunction................................................................. 44
c. Causal Conjunction......................................................................... 45
3. Ways of Using Reitration ..................................................................... 46
4. Ways of Using Collocation ................................................................... 49
B. Ways of Using Coherence by IPA and IPS Students ................................... 57
1. Ways of Using Coherence by IPA and IPS Students ............................. 57
a. The Use of Topic Sentence ............................................................. 58
b. The Use of One Idea in One Paragraph ........................................... 60
c. The Avoidance of Digression among Paragraphs ............................ 61
C. The Influence of Majors on Cohesion ......................................................... 64
1. The Influence of Majors on the Use of Causal Conjunction .................. 69
v
2. The Influence of Majors on the Use of Adversative Conjunction .......... 70
3. The Influence of Majors on the Use of Repetition ................................. 72
4. The Influence of Majors on the Use of Demonstrative Reference.......... 77
5. The Influence of Majors on the Use of Causal Conjunction .................. 79
6. The Influence of Majors on the Use of Chain of Collocation................. 81
7. The Influence of Majors on the Use of Adversative Conjunction .......... 82
8. The Influence of Majors on the Use of Repetition ................................. 84
D. The Influence of Majors on Coherence ....................................................... 84
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS................................... 102
A. Conclusions................................................................................................ 102
B. Suggestions .............................................................................................................. 103
REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 104
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 108
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researcher would like to express her deepest gratitude to Jesus Christ,
the Almighty and Most Beneficial, for His Grace, Guidance, Praise, Honour, and
Mercy that has been given to the researcher so that she finally accomplished her
thesis entitled: “Cohesion and Coherence of Argumentative Writing of the
Students with Natural and Social Science Majors”.
This thesis is aimed to fulfill one of the requirements for the degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan of the English Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts,
State University of Medan (UNIMED).
In completing this thesis, the researcher realized that she faced some
problems and she had received the academic guidance, suggestions, and
comments and got a lot of assistance and moral support from many people.
Therefore, the researcher would like to express her gratitude and special thanks to:
Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., the Rector of State University of Medan.
Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., the Dean of Faculty of Languages and Arts.
Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English and Literature
Department.
Nora Ronita Dewi, S.Pd., S.S., M.Hum., the Head of English Educational
Study Program.
Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd., and Rita Suswati, S.Pd., M.Hum, Thesis
Advisors for their valuable time, knowledge, and guidance with all of their
patience and wisdom during the process of accomplishing this thesis.
Dra. Masitowarni Siregar, M.Ed. and Rafika Dewi Nasution, S.Pd.,
M.Hum, Examiners for their valuable input to furnish this thesis.
Eis Sri Wahyuningsih, M. Pd. and Pantes, the Administration Staffs of
English Department
Drs. Robert, M.M, the Headmaster of SMA Methodist Binjai for giving the
permission and support to the researcher during the research.
ii
Tarmiyo, S.Pd. , the English Teacher of SMA Methodist Binjai for helping the
researcher during the research and all of the students, especially the 12th grade
of Natural and Social Science students.
Her beloved parents Agus Sembiring Pandia and Betsaida br. Hutagalung,
Amd. for their endless love, support, and prayer.
Her beloved grandmother Nalsali br. Tarigan for her abundant love and
prayer.
Special thanks for Frikson Siburian for his great love, time, patience, and
support in finishing the thesis.
Her beloved friends “The Black Ribbon” Berman, Bertha, Citra, Malawita
and Petrus for the great experience during 4 years of togetherness and
friendship.
Her beloved step sister Sri Lestari Setyawan, Theresia Manalu, Yeslika
Debora br. Bangun, Shely Hutajulu, Putri Sembiring, and Ratna br.
Ginting, and also her step brothers Boy Simangunsong and Simon Christofel
Silalahi for their support, laugh, advices, and prayer.
The researcher realizes that this thesis still has the paucity; she
conveniently welcomes any suggestions, comments and advices that will improve
the quality of this thesis. She hopes that this thesis would be useful for those who
read and interest in the field of this study.
Medan,
January 2017
The researcher,
Betharia br. Sembiring Pandia
Reg. No 2123121006
iii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Pages
Appendix A. VC’s writing on National Examination topic ..........................108
Appendix B. KE’s writing on National Examination topic ..........................109
Appendix C. AK’s writing on National Examination topic ..........................110
Appendix D. KU’s writing on National Examination topic..........................111
Appendix E. JL’s writing on National Examination topic ............................112
Appendix F. VC’s writing on Wearing Uniform topic .................................113
Appendix G. KE’s writing on Wearing Uniform topic .................................114
Appendix H. AK’s writing on Wearing Uniform topic ................................115
Appendix I. KU’s writing on Wearing Uniform topic ..................................116
Appendix J. JL’s writing on Wearing Uniform topic ...................................117
Appendix K. FS’s writing on National Examinatio topic .............................118
Appendix L. JU’s writing on National Examinatio topic .............................119
Appendix M. JE’s writing on National Examinatio topic .............................120
Appendix N. JS’s writing on National Examinatio topic..............................121
Appendix O. PF’s writing on National Examinatio topic .............................122
Appendix P. FS’s writing on Wearing Uniform topic ..................................123
Appendix Q. JU’s writing on Wearing Uniform topic..................................124
Appendix R. JE’s writing on Wearing Uniform topic ..................................125
Appendix S. JS’s writing on Wearing Uniform topic ...................................126
Appendix T. PF’s writing on Wearing Uniform topic ..................................127
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1 Hayes – Flowr’s Model of Cognitive Process in Writing .......................11
Figure 2.2 Knapp’s Model of Genre .........................................................................14
Figure 4.1 Graphic of The Use of Grammatical Cohesion by IPA and IPS
Students Across All Topics .....................................................................43
Figure 4.2 Graphic of Chain of Collocational Cohesion by IPA and IPS
Students ....................................................................................................53
Figure 4.3 Summary of the Influence of Majors on the Use of Cohesive Devices
by IPA and IPS Students ..........................................................................83
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 4.1 Repetition on National Examination and Wearing Uniform Topic
by IPA and IPS Students....................................................................49
Table 4.2 Chain of Collocation by IPA and IPS Students ...................................55
Table 4.3 The Source of Incoherence on Argumentative Writing
by IPA and IPS Students ....................................................................63
Table 4.4 Data 24 on Cohesive Devices on National Examination Topic by
IPA and IPS Students .........................................................................65
Table 4.5 Data 25 on Causal Conjunction on National Examination Topic by
IPA and IPS Students ........................................................................69
Table 4.6 Data 26 on Adversative Conjunction on National Examination
Topic by IPA and IPS Students...........................................................71
Table 4.7 Data 27 on Repetition on National Exam Topic by IPA and IPS
Students .............................................................................................72
Table 4.8 Data 28 on Cohesive Devices on Wearing Uniform Topic by IPA
and IPS Students ................................................................................74
Table 4.9 Data 29 on Demonstrative Reference on Wearing Uniform Topic
by IPA and IPS Students ...................................................................78
Table 4.10 Data 30 on Causal Conjunction on Wearing Uniform Topic by
IPA and IPS Students .......................................................................80
Table 4.11 Data 31 on Chain of Collocation on Wearing Uniform Topic by
IPA and IPS Students .......................................................................81
Table 4.12 Data 32 on Adversative Conjunction on Wearing Uniform Topic
by IPA and IPS Students ..................................................................83
Table 4.13 Data 33 on Repetition on Wearing Uniform Topic by IPA and
IPS Students .....................................................................................85
vii
Table 4.14 Data 34 on Coherence Principles on National Examination Topic
by IPA and IPS Students ..................................................................88
Table 4.15 Data 35 on Topic Sentence Principle on National Examination
Topic by IPA and IPS Students ........................................................90
Table 4.16 Data 36 on One Idea in One Paragraph Principle on National
Examination Topic by IPA and IPS Students ..................................91
Table 4.17 Data 37 on Avoidance of Digression Principle on National
Examination Topic by IPA and IPS Students ...................................93
Table 4.18 Data 38 on Coherence Principles on Wearing Uniform Topic by
IPA and IPS Students ......................................................................94
Table 4.19 Data 39 on Topic Sentence Principle on Wearing Uniform Topic
by IPA and IPS Students...................................................................95
Table 4.20 Data 40 on One Idea in One Paragraph Principle on Wearing
Uniform Topic by IPA and IPS Students .........................................96
Table 4.21 Data 41 on Avoidance of Digression Principle on Wearing
Uniform Topic by IPA and IPS Students ..........................................98
Table 4.22 Summary of the Coherence on Argumentative Writing by IPA
and IPS Students..............................................................................99
viii
CHAPTER I
INTRODECTION
A. The Background of the Study
In language learning, writing has always been one of the other three skills like
listening, speaking, and reading, that needs to be mastered by students. It is a must
have skill for them to share everything that goes to their mind or everything they
ewperienced.
Byrne (1979:1) states that writing is the encoding of a message that we
translate our thoughts into language. The message can be delivered by either spoken
or written. Spoken and written form of communication have different characteristics.
In speaking, the listener can directly ask for clarification related to the message so
that the speaker can repeat or ewplain it further. Moreover, through speaking, the
speaker can ewpress his or her feeling through loudness, rhythm, speed, pauses and
even gestures. It makes the listener feel the emotion or get the message easily.
Meanwhile, in writing, the message should be clearly written. It should be achieved
through the use of approriate word choices, correct sentences form and clear ideas
organization.
For Indonesia’s educational contewt which is realized in syllabus, writing skill
is ewpected to be able to be masterred by students. To do this, students are demanded
to be able to be fully engaged with the task by utilizing their knowledge and
1
2
ewperience. Besides, to produce a written tewt well, students need to learn not only the
spelling and punctuation, but also ways of organizing tewt at sentence level and above
(Sharples 1999:13). However, it is often found that students’ writing skill is still low
in terms of its connection between sentences (cohesion) and meaning as a whole
piece of writing (coherence), as it is shown on this following short paragraph:
JR’s Argumentative Writing: Should Students be Allowed
to Bring Cellphone to School?
In our school a lot of students brcng cellhhone. But the
school make the rule that forbcd students to brcng hhone. The
headmaster ever tell us about the trouble of allowcng students
to brcng hhone to school.
He sacd “When school student brcng hhone they wcll lose
thecr concentrate. They wcll hlay game, chattcng, even when
the test they wcll cheatcng. They thcnk ct’s a ncce and cool
thcng to do.
From the paragraph above, the student shows connections between sentences
but it lacks of coherence since the idea is not completely stated and the writer does
not stand from his viewpoint.
Meanwhile, it is required that sentences within a tewt need to be connected to
each other so that the reader will be easier to understand the sequence (Brostoff,
1981). In addition, Harmer (2004:22) asserts that for writing to be truly accessible, it
needs to be both cohesive and coherent. Cohesion ewists where the interpretation of
any item in the tewt requires making reference to some other item in it (Halliday
1976:11). Meanwhile, coherence is the overall tewture of a tewt on how it makes sense
to readers (Harmer, 2004:22). Garing (2014) also states that these two terms are some
factors to call a tewt as communicative. Thus, it is important not only for the students
3
to be able to produce such a meaningful tewt, but also the teachers need to teach and
help the students to recognize the use of cohesion and coherence as the criteria of
either good or accessible writing.
For the twelfth grade students, in this case, natural and social science class,
they are specifically demanded to be able to write an argumentative tewt. Regarding
to this point, teachers need to have an understanding that there are some factors that
contribute to their students’ argumentation (Deane et.al, 2008:47), they are: (1)
linguistic skill, (2) background knowledge, (3) critical thinking skill. If they are good
for the three factors, it can be said that they will produce a cohesive and coherent
writing.
In relation to cognitive process, in this case the cognitive process due to the
students’ major in writing argumentative writing, Safitri (2013) concluded that
Natural Science students tended to plan their writing well in which they generated
new ideas for each topic sentence and to support them in paragraphs. Thus, her
findings is in line with the theory of Stenberg in her study, who states that the Natural
Science students tend to adhere rules and procedures while Social Science students
tend to have liberal thinking like surpassing rules and procedures. Thus, Natural
Science students also wrote their argumentative writing according to steps. Unlike the
Natural Science students, she also added that the Social Science students’ writing
avoided planning and reviewing.
Safitri’s (2013) study focused on the difference between the Natural and
Social Science students in terms of cognitive process applied to produce
4
argumentative writing. She claimed that the difference was resulted from the different
majors of the students. If it was true, then the product of their argumentative writing
in terms of coherence and cohesion would be different too. To ensure this idea, this
study was conducted with the title of “Cohesion and Coherence of Argumentative
Writing of the Students with Natural and Social Science Majors”.
B. The Problems of the Study
The problem of the study is formulated as follow:
1. How do the Senior High School students of Natural and Social Science
majors use cohesion of their argumentative writing?
2. How do the Senior High School students of Natural and Social Science
majors use coherence of their argumentative writing?
3. How do the two students’ majors influence the cohesion and coherence of
their argumentative writing?
C. The Scope of the Study
This study is limited to the study of coherence and cohesion on students’
argumentative writing. The cohesion and coherence was ewamined and categorized
into its types. The application of the two terms was compared between the students’
majors which consist the class of 12 IPA 2 and 12 IPS 2.
5
D. The Objectives of the Study
In relation to the problems, the objectives of the study are:
1.
To describe how the Natural and Social Science students use cohesion on
their argumentative writing.
2.
To describe how the Natural and Social Science students use coherence on
their argumentative writing.
3. To describe whether their majors influence the cohesion and coherence on
their argumentative writing.
E. The Significances of the Study
Theoretically, the findings of this research will contribute to either
strengthening or modifying the theory of writing especially the one related to the
relationship between critical thinking with the quality of writing, in this case, the
quality that refers to the cohesion and coherence.
Practically, the findings of this research will be useful for:
1. the teachers in their attempt to make their teaching writing better by taking
the critical thinking ability into account.
2. the students of high school or university level so that they are able to produce
a cohesion and coherence writing.
3. other researchers, as a reference for conducting further research in relation to
cohesion and coherence.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusions
1. In cohesion, both IPA and IPS students achieved cohesion throush the use
of personal, demonstrative reference, additive conjunction, adversative
conjunction, causal conjunction, reiteration, and chain of collocation
across all topics. However, the extended demonstrative reference and
complex additive conjunction were only found in IPA students’ writins.
1. In coherence, IPA students achieved coherence by usins topic sentence
and one idea in one parasraph principles in National Examination topic.
Meanwhile, IPS students achieved coherence in Wearing Uniform topic by
usins the topic sentence and one idea in one parasraph principle also.
3. The students’ major was not the factor affectins the cohesion and
coherence. But, the factor was the students’ interest to the topic. The topic
of National Examination was more important to IPA students rather than
to IPS students, while the topic of Wearing Uniform was more important
to IPS students rather than to IPA students. This was the reason of why
IPA students wrote more cohesive and coherent parasraph on the National
Examination rather than on Wearing Uniform; while the other way around
happened to IPS students.
101
103
B. Suggestions
Based on the above conclusions, there are some sussestions listed:
1. Teachers should consider the topic which is siven to the students because
their majors which are realized in their thinkins is not enoush to see their
ability in achievins cohesive and coherent writins.
1. Students should firstly understand types of cohesive devices and
principles of coherence to be able to present cohesive and coherent
writins.
3. For other researchers, it is important to use more various topics to the
students so that the cohesion and coherence can be seen clearly.
REFERENCES
Angeles, M.S.D. (2005). Coherence in the Argumentative Essay of ADZU college
freshmen: A textual analysis of writing quality.
Amir, A.Z. (2013). The Use of Cohesive Devices in descriptive Writing by Omani
Student- Teachers.
Beaugrande, R. & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London :
Longman
Berzlanovich, I. (2008). Lexical cohesion and the organization of discourse.
First year report. Center for Language and Cognition Groningen: University
of Groningen.
Byrne, D. (1979). Teaching Writing Skills. U.K: Longman Group
Boardman, C.A., & Frydenberg, J. (2002). Writing to communicate: paragraphs and
essays. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Brostoff, A. (1981). Coherence: “Next to” is not “connected to.” College
Composition and Communication, 32 (2), 278–291.
Deane, P et.al. (2008). Cognitive Models of Writing: Writing Proficiency as a
Complex Integrated Skill. Princeton : Educational Testing Service
Deuraman, B. (2007). Cohesion and Coherence in English Essay Written by
Malaysian and Thai Medical Students. Southern Thailand English Language
Teaching/ Cultural Change Conference.
Driscoll, L. D. & Brizee, A. (2013). On Paragraphs. Purdue University
Fitzgerald, D. and Spiegel, D. L. (1986). Textual coherence and cohesion in
children’s writing. Research in Teaching of English, 20(3), 263-280.
Galbraith, D. (2009). Cognitive Models of Writing. GFL Journal. No. 2.
Garing, A.G. (2011). Coherence in Argumentative Essays of First Year College of
Liberal Arts Students at De La Salle University. Manila: University of
Batangas
101
105
Halasek, K. (1999). A Pedagogy of Possibility: Bakhtinian Perspectives on
Composition Studies. Southern Illionis University
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman
Group Ltd.
Harmer, J. (2001). How to Teach Writing. England: Pearson Education.
Heaton, J.B. (1988). Writing English Language Test. London: Longman Group Ltd.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. New York: Cambridge University
Press
Kaewcha, N. (2013). Problems with Coherence in Writing in the Thai Context.
Manustat Paritat. 31.(2), 29-10
Knapp, P. et.al. (2005). Genre, Text, Grammar. Sydney: University of New South
Wales Press
Khusnita, D. (2013). The Use of Facebook to Improve Students’ Skill and Increase
Their Motivation in Writing Recount Texts.Universitas Negeri Semarang.
Mawardi. (2011). An Analysis of the Cohesion and Coherence of the Students’
Narrative Writings in the English Language Education Department of
Nahdlatul Wathan Mataram University. 8.(1)
Mayberry, K. (2009). Everyday Arguments: A Guide to Writing and Reading
Effective Arguments. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge Language Teaching Library
Meyer, A. (2005). Gateways to Academic Writing: Effective Sentences, Paragraphs
and Essays. New York : Pearson Education, Inc.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1991). Qualitative Data Analysis.California:
SAGE Publications Inc.
Morley, G.D. (2000). Syntax in Functional Grammar: An introduction to
lexicogrammar in systemic linguistics. London: Paston PrePress Ltd.
Muvindi, I. (2013). Cohesion and Coherence: Implications for ESL Teachers.
International Journal of Innovative and Applied Research. 1.(1), 80-81.
106
Nudee, N. (2010). Effects of Coopeartive Learning on Writing Ability of Thai
Secondary School Students. Unpublished master thesis, Prince of Songkla
University, Thailand.
Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English Language Teaching. New York: The McGrawHill Companies, Inc.
Renkema, J. (1993). Discourse studies. An introductory textbook. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Safitri, R. (2013). The Cognitive Process of the SMA Students of Different Majors in
Writing Argumentative Text: UNIMED
Sandelowski, M (2000). Whatever Happened to Qualitative Description? Focus on
Research Methods. 23. 331-310
Shahriar, A. et.al. (2012). Coherence and the Role of Cohesion in Coherent
Texts. 12. 373-389.
Sharples, M. (1999). How We Write : Writing as creative design. Great Britain: T.J.
International Ltd.
Taboada, M.T. (2001). Building Coherence and Cohesion. Philadelphia: Johns
Benjamins Publishing Company
Tanawong, P. (2011). The Relationship Between Cohesion and Coherence in
Writing: The Case of Thai EFL Students. A Thesis. Srinakhairinwirot
University
Tangkiengsirisin, S. (2010). Promoting Cohesion in EFL Expository Writing: A
Study of Graduate Students in Thailand. International Journal of Arts and
Sciences. 3.(16), 1-31.
Tanskanen, S.K. (2006). Collaborating Towards Coherence. Philadelphia:Johns
Benjamins Publishing Company
Vyncke, M. (2012). The Concept and Practice of Critical Thinking in Academic
Writing: An Investigation of International Students’ Perceptions and Writing
Experiences. London: King’s College
107
Wang, Y. et.al. (2011). A Short Analysis of Discourse Coherence. Journal of
Language Teaching and Research. 5.(2). 160-165.
Weigle, S.C. (2002). Assessing Writing. New York: Cambridge University Press
Wells, J.M. (2009). Topic Sentences. Purdue University
William, J.M. (2000). Style: Toward Clarity and Grace. London: The University of
Chicago Press.
Witee, S. et.al. (1981). Coherence, Cohesion, and Writing Quality. College
Composition and Communication. 32.(2). 189-201.
Zabu, Vlasta & David Kobal. 2001. Psychology Science Journal. 16. (156)
WEITING OF THE STUDENTS WITH NATUEAL AND
SOCIAL SCIENCE MAJOES
A THESIS
Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
By:
BETHAEIA br. SEMBIEING PANDIA
Eegistration Number : 2123121006
ENGLISH AND LITEEATUEE DEPAETMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND AETS
STATE UNIVEESITY OF MEDAN
2017
ABSTRACT
Pandia, Betharia br. Sembirinn. Renistration Number: 2123121006. Cohesion
and Coherence of Arnumentative Writinn of the Students with Natural and
Social Science Majors.
The objectives of this study were to investigate the way of how Natural and Social
Science students used cohesion and coherence in their argumentative writing. The
data needed to achieve the objective was the students’ writing that was elicited by
assigning them to write two different topics related to their interest namely
National Examination and Wearing Uniform. The cohesion was analyzed
following Halliday and Hasan (1976); while the coherence was analyzed through
the use of three principles of coherence by Carlos and Ceballos in Garing (2014)
and text structure by Knapp and Watkins (200l). In addition, it was also aimed at
seeking the influence of their majors on their using of cohesion and coherence.
This study revealed that both Natural and Social Science students had different
ways of using cohesion and coherence for each topics: National Examination and
Wearing Uniform. It was concluded that Natural Science students had more
cohesive and coherent writing on National Examination topic; while Social
Science students presented more cohesive and coherent writing on Wearing
Uniform topic. However, their majors did not influence the use of cohesion and
coherence, but it was influenced by their interests on the given topics.
Keywords: cohesion, coherence, writing, argumentative text
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. ix
LIST OF APPENDICES...................................................................................... x
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1
A. The Background of the Study ..................................................................... 1
B. The Problem of the Study ........................................................................... 4
C. The Scope of the Study............................................................................... 4
D. The Objective of the Study ......................................................................... 4
E. The Significance of the Study ..................................................................... 5
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................................. 6
A. Theoretical Framework .............................................................................. 6
1. Writing ................................................................................................. 6
a. The Nature of Writing..................................................................... 6
2. Genre ................................................................................................... 12
a. Text Structure ................................................................................. 12
b. Lexicogrammar............................................................................... 13
3. Argumentative Writing ......................................................................... 15
a. Generic Structure ............................................................................ 17
b. Language Features .......................................................................... 17
c. Factors Affeecting Argumentation .................................................. 18
4. Cohesion .............................................................................................. 19
a. The Nature of Cohesion .................................................................. 20
b. Factors Underlying Cohesion .......................................................... 21
c. Grammatical Cohesion.................................................................... 21
1) Reference .................................................................................. 21
2) Substitution ............................................................................... 23
3) Ellipsis ...................................................................................... 24
4) Conjunction .............................................................................. 25
iv
d. Lexical Cohesion ............................................................................ 26
5. Coherence ............................................................................................ 27
a. The Nature of Coherence ................................................................ 28
b. Factors Underlying Coherence ........................................................ 28
B. Major of the Students and Their Argumentative Writing Quality ................ 30
C. Relevant Studies ......................................................................................... 32
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................. 36
A. Research Design ......................................................................................... 36
B. Data and Technique of Data Collection ...................................................... 36
C. The Subjects of the Study ........................................................................... 37
D. The Procedure of Research Design ............................................................. 37
E. The Technique of Data Analysis................................................................. 38
CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSION ............. 39
A. Ways of Using Cohesion by IPA and IPS Students ................................... 40
1. Ways of Using Reference ..................................................................... 40
a. Personal Reference ......................................................................... 40
b. Demonstrative Reference ................................................................ 41
2. Ways of Using Conjunction .................................................................. 42
a. Additive Conjunction ...................................................................... 42
b. Adversative Conjunction................................................................. 44
c. Causal Conjunction......................................................................... 45
3. Ways of Using Reitration ..................................................................... 46
4. Ways of Using Collocation ................................................................... 49
B. Ways of Using Coherence by IPA and IPS Students ................................... 57
1. Ways of Using Coherence by IPA and IPS Students ............................. 57
a. The Use of Topic Sentence ............................................................. 58
b. The Use of One Idea in One Paragraph ........................................... 60
c. The Avoidance of Digression among Paragraphs ............................ 61
C. The Influence of Majors on Cohesion ......................................................... 64
1. The Influence of Majors on the Use of Causal Conjunction .................. 69
v
2. The Influence of Majors on the Use of Adversative Conjunction .......... 70
3. The Influence of Majors on the Use of Repetition ................................. 72
4. The Influence of Majors on the Use of Demonstrative Reference.......... 77
5. The Influence of Majors on the Use of Causal Conjunction .................. 79
6. The Influence of Majors on the Use of Chain of Collocation................. 81
7. The Influence of Majors on the Use of Adversative Conjunction .......... 82
8. The Influence of Majors on the Use of Repetition ................................. 84
D. The Influence of Majors on Coherence ....................................................... 84
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS................................... 102
A. Conclusions................................................................................................ 102
B. Suggestions .............................................................................................................. 103
REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 104
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 108
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researcher would like to express her deepest gratitude to Jesus Christ,
the Almighty and Most Beneficial, for His Grace, Guidance, Praise, Honour, and
Mercy that has been given to the researcher so that she finally accomplished her
thesis entitled: “Cohesion and Coherence of Argumentative Writing of the
Students with Natural and Social Science Majors”.
This thesis is aimed to fulfill one of the requirements for the degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan of the English Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts,
State University of Medan (UNIMED).
In completing this thesis, the researcher realized that she faced some
problems and she had received the academic guidance, suggestions, and
comments and got a lot of assistance and moral support from many people.
Therefore, the researcher would like to express her gratitude and special thanks to:
Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., the Rector of State University of Medan.
Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., the Dean of Faculty of Languages and Arts.
Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English and Literature
Department.
Nora Ronita Dewi, S.Pd., S.S., M.Hum., the Head of English Educational
Study Program.
Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd., and Rita Suswati, S.Pd., M.Hum, Thesis
Advisors for their valuable time, knowledge, and guidance with all of their
patience and wisdom during the process of accomplishing this thesis.
Dra. Masitowarni Siregar, M.Ed. and Rafika Dewi Nasution, S.Pd.,
M.Hum, Examiners for their valuable input to furnish this thesis.
Eis Sri Wahyuningsih, M. Pd. and Pantes, the Administration Staffs of
English Department
Drs. Robert, M.M, the Headmaster of SMA Methodist Binjai for giving the
permission and support to the researcher during the research.
ii
Tarmiyo, S.Pd. , the English Teacher of SMA Methodist Binjai for helping the
researcher during the research and all of the students, especially the 12th grade
of Natural and Social Science students.
Her beloved parents Agus Sembiring Pandia and Betsaida br. Hutagalung,
Amd. for their endless love, support, and prayer.
Her beloved grandmother Nalsali br. Tarigan for her abundant love and
prayer.
Special thanks for Frikson Siburian for his great love, time, patience, and
support in finishing the thesis.
Her beloved friends “The Black Ribbon” Berman, Bertha, Citra, Malawita
and Petrus for the great experience during 4 years of togetherness and
friendship.
Her beloved step sister Sri Lestari Setyawan, Theresia Manalu, Yeslika
Debora br. Bangun, Shely Hutajulu, Putri Sembiring, and Ratna br.
Ginting, and also her step brothers Boy Simangunsong and Simon Christofel
Silalahi for their support, laugh, advices, and prayer.
The researcher realizes that this thesis still has the paucity; she
conveniently welcomes any suggestions, comments and advices that will improve
the quality of this thesis. She hopes that this thesis would be useful for those who
read and interest in the field of this study.
Medan,
January 2017
The researcher,
Betharia br. Sembiring Pandia
Reg. No 2123121006
iii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Pages
Appendix A. VC’s writing on National Examination topic ..........................108
Appendix B. KE’s writing on National Examination topic ..........................109
Appendix C. AK’s writing on National Examination topic ..........................110
Appendix D. KU’s writing on National Examination topic..........................111
Appendix E. JL’s writing on National Examination topic ............................112
Appendix F. VC’s writing on Wearing Uniform topic .................................113
Appendix G. KE’s writing on Wearing Uniform topic .................................114
Appendix H. AK’s writing on Wearing Uniform topic ................................115
Appendix I. KU’s writing on Wearing Uniform topic ..................................116
Appendix J. JL’s writing on Wearing Uniform topic ...................................117
Appendix K. FS’s writing on National Examinatio topic .............................118
Appendix L. JU’s writing on National Examinatio topic .............................119
Appendix M. JE’s writing on National Examinatio topic .............................120
Appendix N. JS’s writing on National Examinatio topic..............................121
Appendix O. PF’s writing on National Examinatio topic .............................122
Appendix P. FS’s writing on Wearing Uniform topic ..................................123
Appendix Q. JU’s writing on Wearing Uniform topic..................................124
Appendix R. JE’s writing on Wearing Uniform topic ..................................125
Appendix S. JS’s writing on Wearing Uniform topic ...................................126
Appendix T. PF’s writing on Wearing Uniform topic ..................................127
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1 Hayes – Flowr’s Model of Cognitive Process in Writing .......................11
Figure 2.2 Knapp’s Model of Genre .........................................................................14
Figure 4.1 Graphic of The Use of Grammatical Cohesion by IPA and IPS
Students Across All Topics .....................................................................43
Figure 4.2 Graphic of Chain of Collocational Cohesion by IPA and IPS
Students ....................................................................................................53
Figure 4.3 Summary of the Influence of Majors on the Use of Cohesive Devices
by IPA and IPS Students ..........................................................................83
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 4.1 Repetition on National Examination and Wearing Uniform Topic
by IPA and IPS Students....................................................................49
Table 4.2 Chain of Collocation by IPA and IPS Students ...................................55
Table 4.3 The Source of Incoherence on Argumentative Writing
by IPA and IPS Students ....................................................................63
Table 4.4 Data 24 on Cohesive Devices on National Examination Topic by
IPA and IPS Students .........................................................................65
Table 4.5 Data 25 on Causal Conjunction on National Examination Topic by
IPA and IPS Students ........................................................................69
Table 4.6 Data 26 on Adversative Conjunction on National Examination
Topic by IPA and IPS Students...........................................................71
Table 4.7 Data 27 on Repetition on National Exam Topic by IPA and IPS
Students .............................................................................................72
Table 4.8 Data 28 on Cohesive Devices on Wearing Uniform Topic by IPA
and IPS Students ................................................................................74
Table 4.9 Data 29 on Demonstrative Reference on Wearing Uniform Topic
by IPA and IPS Students ...................................................................78
Table 4.10 Data 30 on Causal Conjunction on Wearing Uniform Topic by
IPA and IPS Students .......................................................................80
Table 4.11 Data 31 on Chain of Collocation on Wearing Uniform Topic by
IPA and IPS Students .......................................................................81
Table 4.12 Data 32 on Adversative Conjunction on Wearing Uniform Topic
by IPA and IPS Students ..................................................................83
Table 4.13 Data 33 on Repetition on Wearing Uniform Topic by IPA and
IPS Students .....................................................................................85
vii
Table 4.14 Data 34 on Coherence Principles on National Examination Topic
by IPA and IPS Students ..................................................................88
Table 4.15 Data 35 on Topic Sentence Principle on National Examination
Topic by IPA and IPS Students ........................................................90
Table 4.16 Data 36 on One Idea in One Paragraph Principle on National
Examination Topic by IPA and IPS Students ..................................91
Table 4.17 Data 37 on Avoidance of Digression Principle on National
Examination Topic by IPA and IPS Students ...................................93
Table 4.18 Data 38 on Coherence Principles on Wearing Uniform Topic by
IPA and IPS Students ......................................................................94
Table 4.19 Data 39 on Topic Sentence Principle on Wearing Uniform Topic
by IPA and IPS Students...................................................................95
Table 4.20 Data 40 on One Idea in One Paragraph Principle on Wearing
Uniform Topic by IPA and IPS Students .........................................96
Table 4.21 Data 41 on Avoidance of Digression Principle on Wearing
Uniform Topic by IPA and IPS Students ..........................................98
Table 4.22 Summary of the Coherence on Argumentative Writing by IPA
and IPS Students..............................................................................99
viii
CHAPTER I
INTRODECTION
A. The Background of the Study
In language learning, writing has always been one of the other three skills like
listening, speaking, and reading, that needs to be mastered by students. It is a must
have skill for them to share everything that goes to their mind or everything they
ewperienced.
Byrne (1979:1) states that writing is the encoding of a message that we
translate our thoughts into language. The message can be delivered by either spoken
or written. Spoken and written form of communication have different characteristics.
In speaking, the listener can directly ask for clarification related to the message so
that the speaker can repeat or ewplain it further. Moreover, through speaking, the
speaker can ewpress his or her feeling through loudness, rhythm, speed, pauses and
even gestures. It makes the listener feel the emotion or get the message easily.
Meanwhile, in writing, the message should be clearly written. It should be achieved
through the use of approriate word choices, correct sentences form and clear ideas
organization.
For Indonesia’s educational contewt which is realized in syllabus, writing skill
is ewpected to be able to be masterred by students. To do this, students are demanded
to be able to be fully engaged with the task by utilizing their knowledge and
1
2
ewperience. Besides, to produce a written tewt well, students need to learn not only the
spelling and punctuation, but also ways of organizing tewt at sentence level and above
(Sharples 1999:13). However, it is often found that students’ writing skill is still low
in terms of its connection between sentences (cohesion) and meaning as a whole
piece of writing (coherence), as it is shown on this following short paragraph:
JR’s Argumentative Writing: Should Students be Allowed
to Bring Cellphone to School?
In our school a lot of students brcng cellhhone. But the
school make the rule that forbcd students to brcng hhone. The
headmaster ever tell us about the trouble of allowcng students
to brcng hhone to school.
He sacd “When school student brcng hhone they wcll lose
thecr concentrate. They wcll hlay game, chattcng, even when
the test they wcll cheatcng. They thcnk ct’s a ncce and cool
thcng to do.
From the paragraph above, the student shows connections between sentences
but it lacks of coherence since the idea is not completely stated and the writer does
not stand from his viewpoint.
Meanwhile, it is required that sentences within a tewt need to be connected to
each other so that the reader will be easier to understand the sequence (Brostoff,
1981). In addition, Harmer (2004:22) asserts that for writing to be truly accessible, it
needs to be both cohesive and coherent. Cohesion ewists where the interpretation of
any item in the tewt requires making reference to some other item in it (Halliday
1976:11). Meanwhile, coherence is the overall tewture of a tewt on how it makes sense
to readers (Harmer, 2004:22). Garing (2014) also states that these two terms are some
factors to call a tewt as communicative. Thus, it is important not only for the students
3
to be able to produce such a meaningful tewt, but also the teachers need to teach and
help the students to recognize the use of cohesion and coherence as the criteria of
either good or accessible writing.
For the twelfth grade students, in this case, natural and social science class,
they are specifically demanded to be able to write an argumentative tewt. Regarding
to this point, teachers need to have an understanding that there are some factors that
contribute to their students’ argumentation (Deane et.al, 2008:47), they are: (1)
linguistic skill, (2) background knowledge, (3) critical thinking skill. If they are good
for the three factors, it can be said that they will produce a cohesive and coherent
writing.
In relation to cognitive process, in this case the cognitive process due to the
students’ major in writing argumentative writing, Safitri (2013) concluded that
Natural Science students tended to plan their writing well in which they generated
new ideas for each topic sentence and to support them in paragraphs. Thus, her
findings is in line with the theory of Stenberg in her study, who states that the Natural
Science students tend to adhere rules and procedures while Social Science students
tend to have liberal thinking like surpassing rules and procedures. Thus, Natural
Science students also wrote their argumentative writing according to steps. Unlike the
Natural Science students, she also added that the Social Science students’ writing
avoided planning and reviewing.
Safitri’s (2013) study focused on the difference between the Natural and
Social Science students in terms of cognitive process applied to produce
4
argumentative writing. She claimed that the difference was resulted from the different
majors of the students. If it was true, then the product of their argumentative writing
in terms of coherence and cohesion would be different too. To ensure this idea, this
study was conducted with the title of “Cohesion and Coherence of Argumentative
Writing of the Students with Natural and Social Science Majors”.
B. The Problems of the Study
The problem of the study is formulated as follow:
1. How do the Senior High School students of Natural and Social Science
majors use cohesion of their argumentative writing?
2. How do the Senior High School students of Natural and Social Science
majors use coherence of their argumentative writing?
3. How do the two students’ majors influence the cohesion and coherence of
their argumentative writing?
C. The Scope of the Study
This study is limited to the study of coherence and cohesion on students’
argumentative writing. The cohesion and coherence was ewamined and categorized
into its types. The application of the two terms was compared between the students’
majors which consist the class of 12 IPA 2 and 12 IPS 2.
5
D. The Objectives of the Study
In relation to the problems, the objectives of the study are:
1.
To describe how the Natural and Social Science students use cohesion on
their argumentative writing.
2.
To describe how the Natural and Social Science students use coherence on
their argumentative writing.
3. To describe whether their majors influence the cohesion and coherence on
their argumentative writing.
E. The Significances of the Study
Theoretically, the findings of this research will contribute to either
strengthening or modifying the theory of writing especially the one related to the
relationship between critical thinking with the quality of writing, in this case, the
quality that refers to the cohesion and coherence.
Practically, the findings of this research will be useful for:
1. the teachers in their attempt to make their teaching writing better by taking
the critical thinking ability into account.
2. the students of high school or university level so that they are able to produce
a cohesion and coherence writing.
3. other researchers, as a reference for conducting further research in relation to
cohesion and coherence.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusions
1. In cohesion, both IPA and IPS students achieved cohesion throush the use
of personal, demonstrative reference, additive conjunction, adversative
conjunction, causal conjunction, reiteration, and chain of collocation
across all topics. However, the extended demonstrative reference and
complex additive conjunction were only found in IPA students’ writins.
1. In coherence, IPA students achieved coherence by usins topic sentence
and one idea in one parasraph principles in National Examination topic.
Meanwhile, IPS students achieved coherence in Wearing Uniform topic by
usins the topic sentence and one idea in one parasraph principle also.
3. The students’ major was not the factor affectins the cohesion and
coherence. But, the factor was the students’ interest to the topic. The topic
of National Examination was more important to IPA students rather than
to IPS students, while the topic of Wearing Uniform was more important
to IPS students rather than to IPA students. This was the reason of why
IPA students wrote more cohesive and coherent parasraph on the National
Examination rather than on Wearing Uniform; while the other way around
happened to IPS students.
101
103
B. Suggestions
Based on the above conclusions, there are some sussestions listed:
1. Teachers should consider the topic which is siven to the students because
their majors which are realized in their thinkins is not enoush to see their
ability in achievins cohesive and coherent writins.
1. Students should firstly understand types of cohesive devices and
principles of coherence to be able to present cohesive and coherent
writins.
3. For other researchers, it is important to use more various topics to the
students so that the cohesion and coherence can be seen clearly.
REFERENCES
Angeles, M.S.D. (2005). Coherence in the Argumentative Essay of ADZU college
freshmen: A textual analysis of writing quality.
Amir, A.Z. (2013). The Use of Cohesive Devices in descriptive Writing by Omani
Student- Teachers.
Beaugrande, R. & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London :
Longman
Berzlanovich, I. (2008). Lexical cohesion and the organization of discourse.
First year report. Center for Language and Cognition Groningen: University
of Groningen.
Byrne, D. (1979). Teaching Writing Skills. U.K: Longman Group
Boardman, C.A., & Frydenberg, J. (2002). Writing to communicate: paragraphs and
essays. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Brostoff, A. (1981). Coherence: “Next to” is not “connected to.” College
Composition and Communication, 32 (2), 278–291.
Deane, P et.al. (2008). Cognitive Models of Writing: Writing Proficiency as a
Complex Integrated Skill. Princeton : Educational Testing Service
Deuraman, B. (2007). Cohesion and Coherence in English Essay Written by
Malaysian and Thai Medical Students. Southern Thailand English Language
Teaching/ Cultural Change Conference.
Driscoll, L. D. & Brizee, A. (2013). On Paragraphs. Purdue University
Fitzgerald, D. and Spiegel, D. L. (1986). Textual coherence and cohesion in
children’s writing. Research in Teaching of English, 20(3), 263-280.
Galbraith, D. (2009). Cognitive Models of Writing. GFL Journal. No. 2.
Garing, A.G. (2011). Coherence in Argumentative Essays of First Year College of
Liberal Arts Students at De La Salle University. Manila: University of
Batangas
101
105
Halasek, K. (1999). A Pedagogy of Possibility: Bakhtinian Perspectives on
Composition Studies. Southern Illionis University
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman
Group Ltd.
Harmer, J. (2001). How to Teach Writing. England: Pearson Education.
Heaton, J.B. (1988). Writing English Language Test. London: Longman Group Ltd.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. New York: Cambridge University
Press
Kaewcha, N. (2013). Problems with Coherence in Writing in the Thai Context.
Manustat Paritat. 31.(2), 29-10
Knapp, P. et.al. (2005). Genre, Text, Grammar. Sydney: University of New South
Wales Press
Khusnita, D. (2013). The Use of Facebook to Improve Students’ Skill and Increase
Their Motivation in Writing Recount Texts.Universitas Negeri Semarang.
Mawardi. (2011). An Analysis of the Cohesion and Coherence of the Students’
Narrative Writings in the English Language Education Department of
Nahdlatul Wathan Mataram University. 8.(1)
Mayberry, K. (2009). Everyday Arguments: A Guide to Writing and Reading
Effective Arguments. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge Language Teaching Library
Meyer, A. (2005). Gateways to Academic Writing: Effective Sentences, Paragraphs
and Essays. New York : Pearson Education, Inc.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1991). Qualitative Data Analysis.California:
SAGE Publications Inc.
Morley, G.D. (2000). Syntax in Functional Grammar: An introduction to
lexicogrammar in systemic linguistics. London: Paston PrePress Ltd.
Muvindi, I. (2013). Cohesion and Coherence: Implications for ESL Teachers.
International Journal of Innovative and Applied Research. 1.(1), 80-81.
106
Nudee, N. (2010). Effects of Coopeartive Learning on Writing Ability of Thai
Secondary School Students. Unpublished master thesis, Prince of Songkla
University, Thailand.
Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English Language Teaching. New York: The McGrawHill Companies, Inc.
Renkema, J. (1993). Discourse studies. An introductory textbook. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Safitri, R. (2013). The Cognitive Process of the SMA Students of Different Majors in
Writing Argumentative Text: UNIMED
Sandelowski, M (2000). Whatever Happened to Qualitative Description? Focus on
Research Methods. 23. 331-310
Shahriar, A. et.al. (2012). Coherence and the Role of Cohesion in Coherent
Texts. 12. 373-389.
Sharples, M. (1999). How We Write : Writing as creative design. Great Britain: T.J.
International Ltd.
Taboada, M.T. (2001). Building Coherence and Cohesion. Philadelphia: Johns
Benjamins Publishing Company
Tanawong, P. (2011). The Relationship Between Cohesion and Coherence in
Writing: The Case of Thai EFL Students. A Thesis. Srinakhairinwirot
University
Tangkiengsirisin, S. (2010). Promoting Cohesion in EFL Expository Writing: A
Study of Graduate Students in Thailand. International Journal of Arts and
Sciences. 3.(16), 1-31.
Tanskanen, S.K. (2006). Collaborating Towards Coherence. Philadelphia:Johns
Benjamins Publishing Company
Vyncke, M. (2012). The Concept and Practice of Critical Thinking in Academic
Writing: An Investigation of International Students’ Perceptions and Writing
Experiences. London: King’s College
107
Wang, Y. et.al. (2011). A Short Analysis of Discourse Coherence. Journal of
Language Teaching and Research. 5.(2). 160-165.
Weigle, S.C. (2002). Assessing Writing. New York: Cambridge University Press
Wells, J.M. (2009). Topic Sentences. Purdue University
William, J.M. (2000). Style: Toward Clarity and Grace. London: The University of
Chicago Press.
Witee, S. et.al. (1981). Coherence, Cohesion, and Writing Quality. College
Composition and Communication. 32.(2). 189-201.
Zabu, Vlasta & David Kobal. 2001. Psychology Science Journal. 16. (156)