An Analysis of Cohesive Devices in Essays Written by Upper Secondary School Students

This study examines the use of cohesive devices in essays written by upper secondary school students learning Japanese as a foreign language at Kolej Permata Insan, Malaysia. Cohesion plays a crucial role in written discourse by establishing semantic connections between sentences and ideas, thereby contributing to textual clarity, coherence, and logical flow. Guided by the cohesion framework proposed by M. A. K. Halliday and Ruquaiya Hasan (1976), the study investigates the types, frequency, and distribution of cohesive devices and explores their relationship with writing quality. A total of 36 students participated in the study, comprising Tahap 1 (lower secondary) and Tahap 2 (upper secondary) learners with prior exposure to Japanese language writing tasks. The participants were selected through purposive sampling from Japanese language classes at Kolej Permata Insan, a specialized institution for academically gifted students.
Data were collected through structured essay-writing tasks administered in a controlled classroom setting. The essays were evaluated using standardized writing criteria alongside a researcher-developed criteria-referenced banding rubric to classify compositions into higher- and lower-quality groups. The analysis focused on grammatical cohesion (reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction) and lexical cohesion (reiteration and collocation).
The findings indicate that lexical cohesion, particularly repetition, was the most frequently used strategy, whereas grammatical cohesion was used less frequently. Higher-quality essays demonstrated greater density and variety of cohesive devices, contributing to improved coherence and logical organization. Statistical analysis revealed moderate-to-strong positive correlations between cohesive devices and writing quality, with conjunction and reference emerging as significant predictors.
The findings also suggest that students’ heavy reliance on lexical repetition may reflect both limited vocabulary range and developmental patterns commonly observed among second language learners. While repetition supports topic continuity, excessive dependence on this strategy may reduce lexical sophistication and stylistic variation. The study highlights the importance of explicit instruction in cohesion and coherence within Japanese language writing pedagogy. Future research involving larger samples, multiple institutions, and qualitative discourse analysis is recommended to provide deeper insights into cohesion and meaning construction in L2 writing.

Coherence, Cohesion, Discourse analysis, Japanese language writing, Writing proficiency.

1. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. Written Communication, 27(2), 202–229. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309351544 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). The tool for the automatic analysis of cohesion (TAACO): Automatic assessment of local, global, and text cohesion. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1227–1237. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0651-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Hyland, K. (2019). Teaching and researching writing (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Hyland, K. (2022). Second language writing (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. (2018). Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 writing using fine-grained clausal and phrasal indices. The Modern Language Journal, 102(2), 333–349. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12468 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Liu, M., & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 33(4), 623–636. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.02.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2013). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 30(1), 57–86. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312469017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Maynard, S. K. (1997). Japanese communication: Language and thought in context. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Shibatani, M. (1990). The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Widdowson, H. G. (2007). Discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Evaluating the Impacts of Mind Mapping Strategy on Developing EFL Students’ Critical Reading Skills
• Significance of Reading Instructions for Language Improvement in Children with Down Syndrome
• Prenasalised Consonants in Liangmai
• Metadiscourse Matters: Definitions, Models, and Advantages for ESL/ EFL Writing
• Blank Minds and Stuck Voices: Understanding and Addressing Cognitive Anxiety in High-Stakes ESL Speaking Tests