The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cohesive devices in EFL students’ expository writing.
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the use of cohesive devices in students’ expository writing. In particular, the study focuses on types of cohesive device used by the students and how cohesive devices contribute to their writing. This study employs qualitative research through a case study design. Public senior high school in Kuningan is chosen as the site for this study. Nine students of twelfth grade are involved in the study as the respondents. Documents of nine students’ expository writings are the data of this study. The data are analyzed by using the concept of cohesive devices proposed by Halliday and Hasan (1976) which covers reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. Analyses show that the respondents only use four cohesive devices in their writing i.e. reference, substitution, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. These devices also contribute to the process of keeping track of the participants, avoiding repetition and text redundancy, enhancing logical connection between parts of text, and engaging the readers to the core argument of the text. The study infers that it is still problematic although most of the students apply many cohesive devices in their writing. This is because students have not received sufficient training concerning how to use appropriate cohesive devices. Therefore, they should be guided to utilize appropriate cohesive devices in their writing.Keywords: cohesive devices, cohesion, EFL students, expository writing, case study
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“These results support the previous findings and suggest the potential effectiveness of teaching conjunctions explicitly as cohesive devices (Abdelreheim, 2014; Adiantika, 2015; Boukra et al., 2019; Othman, 2019; Alqasham et al., 2021).”
From Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study (2022) · cites this paper as Adiantika, 2015
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, Adiantika (2015) found out in his study EFL students that their errors were due to the lack of training on the appropriate use of cohesive devices.”
From Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study (2022) · cites this paper as Adiantika, 2015
In the citing paper
“Analysis of students’ compositions in the post-WDT showed that they seemed to be more cohesive, unified, and easier to read, encouraging the reader to explore the writer’s ideas as the message swiftly move from one thought to another.”
From Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study (2022) · cites this paper as Adiantika (2015)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Brostoff, A. (1981). Coherence: "Next to" is not "connected to." College Composition and Communication, 32 (2), 278-294.
- Chan, S. W. K.; Thou, B. K.; and Choy, C. F. (2000). Textual Information Segmentation by Cohesive Ties. [Online]. Available: http://aclweb.org/anthology/Y/Y00 /Y00-1006.pdf. Retrieved on June 9 2015.
- Cook, G. (1992). Discourse. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
- Emilia, E. (2012). Pendekatan Genre-Based dalam Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris: Petunjuk Umum Guru. Bandung, Indonesia: Rizqi Press.
- Halliday, M. A. K., & R.Hasan. (1989). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
- Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd, revised edition. London, England: Edward Arnold.
- Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd. ed.). London, England: Hodder Arnold.
- Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
- Holloway, D. W. (1981). Semantic Grammars: How they can help us teach writing. College Composition and Communication, 32 (2), 205-218.
- McArthur, T. (1996). Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
- McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
- McShane, M. J. (2005). A Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
- Sainton, R. J. (2006). Words and Thoughts: Subsentences, Ellipsis, and the Philosophy of Language. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
- Salkie R. (1995). Text and discourse analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Alawerdy, A. S., & Alalwi, F. S. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1053310 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Adiantika, H. N.
- Venue
- English Review: Journal of English Education
- Publisher
- University of Kuningan
- Published
- 2015-12-01
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 94
- ISSN
- 2541-3643
- 2301-7554
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cohesive devices in EFL students’ expository writing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.25134/erjee.v4i1.316
- The paper
- Adiantika, H. N. (2015). Cohesive devices in EFL students’ expository writing. English Review: Journal of English Education. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v4i1.316
