Keywords

1 Introduction

It is often challenging for L2 learners to produce well-written texts in another language due to the complex requirements it imposes (Ampa & Basri 2019). Essay writing is a productive skill that requires an exceptional mastery of many language structures and ranks at the pinnacle of the language hierarchy. In addition, written essays are comprised of sentences that are tightly linked using linguistic units that foster cohesiveness (Saleh & Bharati 2022). Although cohesiveness is crucial to comprehending written texts, it is difficult for language learners to produce cohesive texts because they lack the necessary knowledge of cohesive ties (Abu-Ayyash 2021). As a result, the primary purpose of this research is to investigate the role of lexical cohesiveness in enhancing essay writing of grade 12 students.

1.1 The Research Problem

Cohesion in writing is a problematic issue among language learners and employing LCD in written texts is a major challenge for L2 learners as well as teachers (Saleh and Bharati 2022). Additionally, the existing literature about lexical cohesion indicates that it is still challenging for L2 learners to employ lexical cohesion effectively in essays, and the writing production seems not cohesive (Abu-Ayyash, 2021). The researchers of this paper have recognized that twelfth graders encounter some issues regarding using LCD in their essays. Therefore, the present paper is an attempt to fill in this gap in the existing literature through examining the role of lexical cohesion on the quality of students’ writing and identifying the barriers of employing these devices properly in written texts.

1.2 Rationale and Significance

Professionally, there is a need to educate teachers and learners on the significance of using LCD in writing. Examining the usage of lexical cohesiveness could therefore assist English teachers to identify ways to help their L2 learners advance in this area. In addition, the recommendations of this study could lead the way for English teachers and curriculum specialists to develop better course materials to address the requirements of language learners, particularly Arab students in the UAE. Research-wise, the study is noteworthy due to the dearth of research on coherent devices in personal narrative essays, as the researchers have been unable to identify a single study on this essay form.

1.3 Research Questions

  • 1-Is there any correlation between the total number of LCD and the quality of writing?

  • 2-Is there any relation between specific types of LCD used and the quality of writing?

  • 3- What are the barriers of using LCD in twelve graders’ essay writing?

2 Literature Review

This section describes the various types of LCD based on the model of Halliday and Hasan (1976), and the literature review summarizes the findings of previous studies that investigated the role of cohesive devices in written texts.

2.1 Definition of Key Terms

According to Wang and Zhang (2019), cohesion refers to the semantic links that are used to recognize texts from non-texts. Halliday and Hasan (1976) divided cohesion in to grammatical and lexical. This paper addresses only lexical cohesion. Lexical cohesion is non-grammatical, and it is constructed based on the use of vocabulary. Lexical cohesion falls into two categories: reiteration (antonyms, repetition, synonyms, hyponyms, and meronyms) and collocation. Antonyms are defined by Leech (2016) as words that are opposite in meaning. Synonyms, on the other hand, refer to words which carry the same or nearly the same meaning. Halliday and Hasan (1976) defined repetition as the restatement of the exact vocabulary word or lexical element. Hyponymy refers to the lexical relation between two items in which one is general or superordinate, and the other is more specific or subordinate (Wang & Zhang 2019). Paltridge (2012) states that collocations means that two or more lexical elements collocate with one another to provide new meaning.

2.2 Theoretical Underpinning

Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) model of cohesion and Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) are the basic theoretical underpinnings of the current paper.

Halliday and Hasan’s Model of Cohesion

The model of cohesion set by Halliday and Hasan (1976) is the major backbone for studies related to cohesion and its analysis in language use (Khalil 2019). Based on this model, cohesion is split into grammatical and lexical. The model splits grammatical cohesion to four basic sub-types including substitution, reference, ellipsis, and conjunctions. However, lexical cohesion is subdivided into five main sub-types including repetition, hyponyms, antonyms/synonyms, collocations, and meronyms (Abu-Ayyash & McKenny 2017). The choice of this model is rooted in the fact that it has paved the way for researchers and linguists to study and analyse cohesive ties that exist in a text (Saputra & Hakim 2020). In addition, the model has been used extensively as the most effective cohesion model in several languages such as German and Turkish.

Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL)

SFL is a sociocultural theory of language learning devised by Michael Halliday. SFL is composed of five pillars: structure, system, stratification, instantiation, and meta-function (Abu-Ayyash & McKenny 2017). The first three pillars will be briefly introduced since they serve the purpose of the current paper. Firstly, structure is employed to refer to the syntagmatic order of linguistic elements. Moreover, SFL asserts that system addresses the selections made in a language (Martin 2004). The third pillar is stratification through which language is grouped into three coding systems: semantics, lexicogrammar, and sounding or writing as illustrated in Fig. 1 (Halliday & Hasan 1976). According to Martin (2004), SFL has caused radical transformation into language that is now regarded as the source responsible for constructing meaning while grammar is responsible for creating meaning using various wording.

Fig. 1
A Venn diagram of stratification of S F L represents 3 circles labeled lexicogrammar, semantics, and context from inward to outward direction.

Stratification in SFL

Full size image

2.3 Related Studies

Correlational Studies Concerning Cohesion Density and the Writing Quality

There is a disagreement among scholars whether the use of LCD correlates with the quality of students’ writing (Al-Shamalat & Ghani 2020). For instance, some studies concluded that there was no significant relation between the density of cohesive devices and the quality of students’ essays such as (Al-Shamalat & Ghani 2020; Sidabutar, 2021). Conversely, several studies stated that the density of cohesive devices correlated positively with the quality of students’ essays including (Chanyoo 2018; Sanchez 2019). By means of elaboration, Liu and Braine (2005) adopted Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) cohesion model to examine if there was an association between the number of cohesive ties and the quality of 50 argumentative essays written by Chinese learners of English. The results showed that there was a significant correlation between the density of cohesive ties and the quality of writing. These findings were harmonious with a number of studies (Mora et al. 2021). However, Crossley and McNamara (2010) conducted a study using 184 participants, and they reached contradictory results in that cohesive devices were not necessarily predictors of the writing quality.

The Challenges of Using Cohesive Ties in Essay Writing

Saleh and Bharati (2022) reported that EFL students encountered challenges related to awareness of LCD and text features. Similarly, Ong (2011) stated that L2 learners encountered some difficulties regarding lexical cohesion including unnecessary addition, omission, misuse and excessive repetition. These challenges were in line with those identified by Saputra and Hakim (2020) in that lack of familiarity of cohesive devices was the most significant barrier of employing these ties effectively in written texts. Likewise, Kirana et al. (2018) concurred that lack of cohesion awareness and improper implementation of language features were two main difficulties faced by EFL students. Consistent with the above findings, Ahmed (2010) and Khalil (2019) concurred that most non-native speakers of English tended to repeat the same lexis in their writing due to insufficient lexical knowledge and the inability to use lexis in producing written texts.

Although an extensive body of research was conducted on the effects of cohesive devices on improving EFL students’ written essays, there is scarcity of research carried out on the effects of lexical cohesion on promoting EFL Arab students’ essays, particularly personal narrative essays (Sidabutar 2021). The gap in the existing scholarship regarding studies of the relatedness between lexical cohesion and EFL students’ writing quality was further acknowledged by recent scholars (Abu-Ayyash 2021; Khalil 2019). Therefore, the current study will bridge the gap in the existing literature by investigating the role of lexical cohesion on improving EFL students’ written essays.

3 Methodology

3.1 Research Approach and Design

The present paper adopts the quantitative correlational and the quantitative survey approaches. The quantitative correlational approach serves the purpose of the study since RQ1 and RQ2 are focused on investigating the correlation between lexical density and the writing quality (Creswell 2009). However, the quantitative survey approach aligns well with RQ3 which aims at gathering data about the barriers of using lexical cohesion through an online survey attempted by English teachers.

3.2 Research Instruments

Primary data regarding RQ1 and RQ2 were collected through analysing 30 written essays of twelve graders using the linguistic manual annotation model. However, data for RQ3 were collected using an online survey which consisted of 29 different statements and was developed based on the qualitative findings in the existing literature that identified several challenges encountered by L2 learners regarding use of LCD.

3.3 Sampling

Convenience sampling techniques were used for RQ1 and RQ2 since the researchers aimed to analyse lexical cohesion of 30 twelfth graders essay writing. The researchers involved all twelve graders at school and the sample size was (N = 30). However, simple random sampling was selected for RQ3 in which the researchers used an online survey attempted by (N = 113) English teachers in the UAE. The choice of simple random sampling was beneficial since it was easier to generalize the results as it sought representatives from the wider populations.

3.4 Data Analysis

Data for RQ1 were analysed using Spearman rank-order correlation to examine the degree of association between the total number of LCD and the writing quality as illustrated in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
A number line represents the negative-to-positive correlations. Each correlation has strong and weak sections. The negative weak ranges from 0 to negative 0.5 and the strong ranges from negative 0.5 to negative 1.0. The positive weak ranges from 0 to 0.5 and the strong from 0.5 to 1.0.

Basic spectrum of interpreting correlational coefficient

Full size image

In addition, multiple regression analysis using SPSS was adopted in line with RQ2 to investigate the linear relation between each type of LCD and the writing quality. Lastly, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using SPSS was employed with RQ3 to identify the main barriers that students encountered while using LCD in writing. The choice of EFA was to examine the correlation among different variables to identify common factors.

4 Results and Discussion

The findings of the study were reported, analysed, and interpreted according to the order of the research questions.

4.1 Research Question 1

  • Is there any correlation between the total number of cohesive devices used and the writing quality?

Using the non-parametric test of Spearman rank-order correlation, the researchers aimed to find out the correlation between the two variables. Table 1 below presents the results of research question 1.

Table 1 Results of the spearman rank-order correlation test
Full size table

According to Table 1, it was noted that the Spearman correlation coefficient r = 0.401 and the p-value = 0.028. Therefore, the results revealed that there was a moderate positive correlation between the independent variable of the total number of cohesive devices and the dependent variable of students’ marks. Besides, the degree of association was statistically significant since the P-value of 0.028 is <0.05. These results were harmonious with several previous studies in that cohesive density led to improving the quality of students’ writing (Chanyoo 2018; Liu & Braine 2005; Sanchez 2019). Conversely, these findings contradicted those concluded by other researchers who concluded that there was no statistically significant correlation between cohesion density and the writing quality including (Al-Shamalat & Ghani 2020; Sidabutar 2021).

4.2 Research Question 2

  • Is there any relation between specific types of LCD used and the writing quality?

In order to answer RQ2, the researchers employed multiple linear regression because it works effectively to analyse the relation between a single dependent variable (students’ marks) and multiple independent variables (repetition, synonyms, antonyms, hyponyms, and collocation) as concurred by Williams et al. (2013). Furthermore, upon testing the required assumptions for running the test, multiple linear regression analysis was used along with “the stepwise method” to answer RQ2.

As shown in Table 2, it was observed that the independent variables of hyponyms and synonyms were both significant in terms of the dependent variable of students’ marks since their p-value was 0.003 and 0.017 respectively. Since both figures were less than 0.05, they were statistically significant in relation to the dependent variable of students’ mark. Furthermore, the Beta Standardized Coefficients value was 0.485 for hyponyms and 0.375 for synonyms. Therefore, the model showed that with every increase of one standard deviation in the usage of hyponyms devices, the quality of students’ writing rose by 0.485 standard deviations. Similarly, with every increase of one standard deviation in the use of synonyms devices, the quality of students’ writing increased by 0.375 standard deviations. In addition, it was concluded that hyponyms had more effect on the quality of writing than synonyms. The findings of RQ2 were contradictory to those reached by Wang and Zhang (2019) who stated that repetition was the most common LCD in students’ essays whereas hyponyms was the least commonly used. In addition, their model of analysis showed that there was a statistically significant relation between lexical cohesion and students’ scores in writing. This is harmonious with the conclusions reached by the researchers of the present paper. In addition, the low rate of hyponymy used in students’ essays was mirrored in the findings of some previous studies (Ampa & Basri 2019).

Table 2 Coefficients’ results of the multiple linear regression test
Full size table

4.3 Research Question 3

  • What are the barriers of using LCD in grade 12 students’ writing?

In order to answer RQ3, the researchers employed Exploratory EFA using several stages so that effective conclusions could be drawn. Thereafter, the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method of factor extraction was run to find out the minimum number of factors that would account for the maximum variance in data using total variation element (see Table 3). EFA resulted in identifying 3 factors that represented the barriers of using lexical cohesion in students’ writing. The first factor was “Lack of resources and instructions”, the second factor was “The impact of L1 interference” and the third factor was “limited lexical awareness.” More significantly, the findings of RQ3 were consistent with the existing literature regarding the challenges that students encountered in terms of using LCD in their writing. For instance, the current paper identified limited lexical awareness as one barrier, which is harmonious with the results concluded by other researchers (e.g., Khalil 2019; Liu & Braine 2005). Similarly, the identified factors of lack of resources and instructions and the impact of language interference on acquisition of lexical cohesion were consistent with the findings stated by Chanyoo (2018).

Table 3 Rotated component matrix of EFA
Full size table

5 Conclusion and Implications

This paper sought to examine the role of lexical cohesion in improving twelve graders’ essay writing. The current paper employed the quantitative correlational and the quantitative survey research approaches. Data were analysed using correlational statistics, multiple linear regression, and exploratory factor analysis. The results showed that there was a moderate positive correlation between LCD and the writing quality, which was statistically significant. In addition, the findings of RQ2 revealed that there was a linear relationship between hyponymy and synonymy and the quality of students’ writing although hyponyms had more effect on the quality of writing than synonyms. Similarly, the results of exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that there were 3 extracted factors that represented the challenges of using lexical cohesion in students’ writing namely lack of resources and instructions, impact of L1 interference, and limited lexical awareness.

Taken together, the findings of the present paper provide some significant implications that will be feasible in case they are effectively considered. One implication is for English teachers to provide clear instructions and guidance on how to use cohesive devices effectively to maintain text cohesion. Additionally, English teachers are recommended to provide constructive feedback and error correction to maximize students’ effective use of LCD in their written texts. Another implication is for curriculum specialists to integrate teaching cohesive devices with sufficient practice for twelfth graders so that they can improve the quality of their writing. In addition, the findings of the present paper will pave the way for future studies that examine text cohesion and coherence as an indication of maintaining a better writing quality. Finally, while this paper is anticipated to contribute to the existing literature on cohesion, further research is essentially needed to identify effective measures to overcome the challenges and barriers identified in the current paper as hindrance to students’ writing quality.