17Jul 2017


  • Cavite State University ? Tanza Campus, Philippines.
Crossref Cited-by Linking logo
  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

The study used quantitative methodology and cross-sectional approach to determine cohesive devices used in English and Pilipino expository essays by Filipino college freshmen. These were correlated with raw scores they obtained. It revealed the cohesive devices they were supposed to use and those they frequently use or misuse. It found out why they ignored certain cohesive device. Instruments were used to elicit substantial results. Percentage, Pearson r and one-factor ANOVA were used for analysis. The outputs were correlated using t-test for dependent or correlated means. Cohesives used were mostly definite articles, pronoun references and place and time markers, transitions, with support/evidence and cause and effect types. Cohesives were misused and abused only in the English essay. Cohesives used were those only known to them or what they only remembered. There was a very high positive correlation between the number of words used and the reference cohesion in the essays; a moderately small positive correlation between the total words used over the transitions; a moderately small positive correlation between the total words used to the raw score; and significant effect of reference cohesion, transition and raw scores. T-test showed a negative difference between students? English and Pilipino essays.

  1. AbiSamra, N. (2003). An analysis of errors in Arabic speaker?s English writings. American University of Beirut, 87 pp.
  2. Basturkmen, H. (2002). Clause relations and macro patterns: cohesion, coherence, and the writing of advanced ESOL students. English Teaching Forum, pp. 50-56.
  3. Benda, J. (1999). CCR 691 Methodological Community, Retrieved on October 21, 2016 at http://web.syr.edu/~jpbenda/methcomm.htm.
  4. Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly vol. 36, no. 4, pp.493-507.
  5. Field, Y. (1994). Cohesive conjunctions in the English writing of Cantonese speaking students from Hong Kong. ARAL, 17, 1, pp. 125-139.
  6. Fries, Charles (1945). Teaching and Learning English as a Second Language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  7. Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
  8. Kaplan, Robert (1966). Cultural Thought Patterns in Intercultural Education, University of Southern California.
  9. Lado, Robert (1957). Linguistics across Cultures, University of Michigan Press.
  10. Liu, D. (2000). Writing cohesion: Using content lexical ties in ESOL. English Teaching Forum, 38, 1, pp. 28-33.
  11. McCarthy, M. and R. Carter (1994). Language as discourse. Harlow, U.K.: Longman.
  12. Olshtein, E. and M. Celce-Murcia (2003). Discourse and Context in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
  13. Thompson, Roger M. (2003). Filipino English and Taglish: Language Switching from Multiple Perspectives. John Benjamins Publishing Co. Amsterdam: The Netherlands.
  14. Tupas, T. R. (2006). Why do my students write the way they write: the problem of culture in teaching professional communication. Singapore Tertiary English Teachers Society (STETS) Vol 5.
  15. VogtJ@missouri.edu (2006). Five-minute workshop in cohesion in writing. Curators of the University of Missouri DMCA and other copyright information. Retrieved on November 15, 2016 at http://cwp.missouri.edu/resources/five_minute_workshops_and_teaching_ resources/Five_Minute_Workshops/Cohesion_in_ Writing.htm.
  16. Wilcoxon, H. C. and K. Hayward (1991). Resolving problems with cohesion. New Horizons, 32, pp. 100-104.
  17. Winter, E. (1977). A clause-relational approach to English texts: A study of some predictive lexical items in written discourse. Instructional Science, 6, 1, pp. 1-92.

[Noel B. Manarpiis. (2017); COHESIVE DEVICES USED IN ENGLISH AND PILIPINO EXPOSITORY ESSAYS BY YOUNG ADULT FILIPINOS. Int. J. of Adv. Res. 5 (Jul). 234-245] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com

Noel B. Manarpiis
Cavite State University – Tanza Campus, Philippines


Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/4711      
DOI URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/4711