Abstract
Previous studies concerning cohesion and coherence are mainly about writing quality, and researchers exploring cohesion have not reached agreement as to whether there are significant differences in high and low proficiency groups’ cohesive devices.
In addition, few studies about cohesion have regarded different proficiency and different genres as variables simultaneously, especially within a Taiwanese context. Though few researchers had conducted studies compared how second language learners applied cohesive ties in different genres, the subjects were mainly undergraduates and graduate students; high school students were not taken into consideration so far. In recent years, the teaching of English writing has gradually received emphasis since English composition has been implemented as a section in the big exams, the Scholastic Achievement English Test (SAET) and the Department Required English Test (DRET), and this has influenced how teachers teach English writing in high school profoundly. Therefore, this study attempts to explore cohesion in different proficiency Taiwanese senior high students in different genres. A total of 137 third-grade senior high students participated the study, all of whom took part in three SAET and three DRET mock exams. The compositions of the top ten and the lowest ten among the participants were picked out to be further analyzed. The total number of cohesive devices was calculated in high and low proficiency writers’ writing, and the cohesive devices were analyzed with the modified framework from Halliday and Hasan’s (1976), Stotsky’s (1983) and Hasan’s (1985). Furthermore, Hasan’s (1985) framework of cohesive chain was also applied to analyze the numbers and lengths of cohesive chains in students’ compositions.
The major findings can be summarized in terms of cohesive ties and cohesive chains. With regard to cohesive ties, both high and low proficiency groups applied references most, followed by conjunctions, while substitutions and ellipsis were rarely
used. Among all the references, pronominal references were used most frequently. In addition, high level students, compared with their low level counterparts, used more synonyms, while low level students applied more repetitions. As to the genres, despite the different examinations, the present study found that these two exams generally used prompts of two compounds of genres: descriptive plus narrative, and narrative plus expository writing. These two compounds also played important roles in students’ usage of cohesive ties. It was found that the tokens and types of cohesive ties students used were more in descriptive plus narrative genres than in the other compound. When it comes to students’ use of cohesive chains, the numbers of the amounts and lengths of cohesive chians found in high proficiency group were both higher than in the low level group. Furthermore, high proficiency students tended to use certain key words and synonyms to make their compositions consistent and coherent, while the low level group tended to use repetitions to connect sentences. In addition, low proficiency writers were often found to lose in new topics and ended their original cohesive chains in the middleway of writing. Moreover, prompts also had influenced students’ use of cohesive chains to certain degree. In conclusion, genres, writers’ proficiency, prompts, and high school teaching mode all influence students’ use of cohesive ties and cohesive chains deeply, especially the latter three.

References
Brown, G., and G. Yule. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J. D. (1991). Do English Faculties Rate Writing Samples Differently? TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 587-603.
Chen, H. (2003). An Analysis of Lexical Cohesion in Senior High School Student’s Compositions. Unpublished master‘s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chou, M. C. (2000). Lexical cohesion and the quality of the EFL writing text. 華岡外語學報, 199-209.
Crowhurst, M. (1987). Cohesion in argument and narration at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 185-201.
Ferris, D. R. (1994). Lexical and syntactic feature of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 414-420.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Ruqaiya, H. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Ruqaiya, H. (1985). Language Context and Text: Aspects of Languages in a Social Semiotic Perspective. Victoria: Deakin University.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Ruqaiya, H. (1987). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Ruqaiya, H. (1989). Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hasan, R. (1985). ‗The structure of a text‘ in M. A. K. Halliday and R. Hasan (eds.). Language, Context and Aspects of Language in a Social Semiotic Perspective. Geeling, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Jin, W. (2001). A qualitative study of cohesive in Chinese graduate students‘ writing: variations across genres and proficiency levles. Paper presented at the Symposium on Second Language Writing at Purdue University, Indiana, United
62
States.
Liang, L. R. (1997). Cohesion in freshman English compositions: A quantitative and qualitative analysis. Unpublished master‘s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Liu, M., & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing
produced by Chinese undergraduates. SYSTEM, 33, 623-636.
McCulley, G. A. (1985). Writing Quality, Coherence, and Cohesion. Research in the Teaching of English, 19(3), 269-282.
Neuner, L. J. (1987). Cohesive ties and chains in good and poor freshman essays. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 92-105.
Norment, J. N. (1982). Contrastive analysis of organizational structures and cohesive elements in English, Spanish (ESL-) and Chinese (ESL-) students’ writing in narrative and expositiory modes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED269764).
Norment, J. N. (2002). Quantitative and qualitative analyses of textual cohesion in African American student‘s writing in narrative, argumentative, and expository modes. CLA Journal, 46(1), 98-132.
Parsons, G. (1996). The Development of the Concept of Cohesive Harmony. In Margaret Berry, Christopher Butler, Robin Fawcett and Guowen Huang (eds.) Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations (Meaning and Choice in Language: Studies for Michael Halliday). Norwood: NJ: Ablex.
Stotsky, S. (1983). Types of lexical cohesion in expository writing: Implications for developing the vocabulary of academic discourse. College Composition and Communication, 34, 430-446.
Tseng, Y. (2009). Textual Cohesion in Taiwanese College Students’ English Writing: A Quantitative and Qualitative Study. Unpublished master‘s thesis, National
63
Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Witte, S. P., & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing ability. College Composition and Communication, 32, 189-204.