雖然過去很多學者研究凝結詞的使用、凝結詞與文章品質的關係，以及不同程度的學生的使用差異，但目前仍無決定性的結論。另外雖然過去的研究探討學生錯誤的使用，但少有學者探討凝結詞的教學以及其與錯誤使用之間的關聯．本研究的目的在於探討高中生凝結詞的使用。主要的研究問題如下：
1. 哪些凝結詞的種類最常被高中生使用？學生程度差異是否影響凝結詞的使用？
2. 高中生常犯的凝結詞錯誤是哪些？學生程度是否有影響？
3. 台灣的高中生的課本如何呈現凝結詞的內容？老師如何教導凝結詞？課本內容、教師的教學與學生的錯誤使用是否有關？
本次研究採用九十三位高三學生的兩次模擬考作文，並採用Halliday 和 Hasan (1976)提出的凝結詞理論分析凝結詞的正確及錯誤使用，另外也採用雅思寫作評分標準中的凝結與連貫子項目給予學生凝結詞的分數。另外，本研究也分析學生三年來用的英文課本以及進行教師訪談。
結果指出學生最常用的凝結詞種類為指稱詞和連接詞，同時也發現學生的程度差異影響他們對於指出因果關係以及時間關係的連接詞的使用。相關分析也證實了凝結詞與文章品質有正相關。至於學生的錯誤使用，本研究歸納出幾個常見的錯誤，分別是模糊的指涉對象、限定詞the的省略或誤用、指示詞的不當使用、連接詞的誤用、缺乏連接詞、以及連接詞的錯誤措辭。語意的凝結詞在使用上並無發現太多錯誤。在質化研究部分，本研究發現課本涵蓋有限的凝結詞內容，教師對於凝結詞的了解亦不足。儘管老師們清楚知道學生常犯的凝結詞錯誤，老師們並無系統化及有效的教學方式協助學生改善凝結詞的使用。本研究因此提出一些教學上的建議，期許可以協助凝結詞的教學以改善寫作品質。

Numerous studies have been conducted in the use of cohesive devices, the influence of learners’ proficiency levels, and the relationship between cohesion and the quality of writing, but no decisive conclusion was drawn. Although previous studies examined the incorrect use of cohesive devices, seldom did they probe how cohesion is taught in school and the relation between teaching practice and incorrect use of cohesive devices. In this study, I aim to examine learners’ use of cohesive devices. Three research questions are investigated:
(1) What are the types of cohesive devices that are most frequently used in EFL high school learners’ compositions and does learners’ proficiency make a difference?
(2) What are the errors and problems related to cohesive devices made by EFL high school learners and does learners’ proficiency make a difference?
(3) How has cohesion been taught in Taiwanese senior high school EFL textbooks and by school teachers and is there a link among the textbooks’ content, teachers’ instruction and the students’ errors?
Ninety-three 12th graders in a senior high school in southern Taiwan participated in this study. Data for the analysis were collected from English compositions in two simulated university entrance examinations. To analyze the data, I coded cohesive devices mainly based on Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) cohesion theory and rated cohesion using an analytical scoring scale adapted from IELTS TASK 2 Writing Band. I also reviewed textbooks and conducted teacher interviews in order to understand how cohesion is taught in school.
The results showed that reference and conjunction are two types of cohesive devices that were used most frequently. Only causal and temporal conjunctions were used significantly different among students of different proficiency levels. Correlational analysis also confirmed the positive relationship between cohesion and the writing quality. As for errors and problems, it was found that main types include unclear reference, omission and misuse of definite article the, inappropriate use of proximity demonstrative, misuse of conjunction, lack of conjunction, and wrong expression of conjunction. Only minor errors were identified in lexical cohesion. In the qualitative study, it was found that limited content in the textbook is devoted to cohesion. Moreover, teachers have insufficient knowledge about cohesion. Even though they recognized learners’ errors, they had no systematic and effective teaching methods for students’ improvement. Some pedagogical implications are provided to facilitate teaching and learning of cohesion in writing.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
摘要 (Chinese) i
ABSTRACT (English) iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS viii
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xii
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Research Questions 3
1.3 Significance of the Study 5
1.4 Definition of Terms 5
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Overview 7
2.2 Cohesion Theory 7
2.2.1 Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) Cohesion Theory 8
2.2.1.1 Grammatical Cohesive Devices 8
2.2.1.2 Lexical Cohesive Devices 14
2.2.1.3 Relational Distance between Presupposition and the Tie 17
2.2.2 Criticisms and Updates 17
2.2.3 Summary of 2.2 21
2.3 Previous Studies on Cohesion in Writing 23
2.3.1 Cohesion as an Indicator of Writing Quality 23
2.3.2 Proficiency as a Variable 32
2.3.3 Summary of 2.3 38
2.4 Studies on the Use of Cohesive Devices 38
2.4.1 Use of Cohesive devices 38
2.4.2 Error Analysis 41
2.4.3 Summary of 2.4 44
2.5 Research Related to Teaching of Cohesion 46
2.6 Summary of the Chapter 48
2.7 Relationships between Previous Studies and this Study 50
2.7.1 Cohesion theory Adopted in this Paper 50
2.7.2 Gaps Left by Previous Research to be Addressed in this Paper 51
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 54
3.1 Design of the Study 54
3.2 Research Questions 54
3.3 Participants 55
3.4 Instruments 56
3.5 Pilot Study 62
3.6 Data Collection Procedure 64
3.7 Data Analysis 71
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 75
4.1 The Use of Cohesive Devices per T-unit by the Three Proficiency Groups in September and November Exams 75
4.1.1 Reference Devices per T-unit across the Three Proficiency Groups 79
4.1.2 Conjunction per T-unit by the Three Proficiency Groups 81
4.1.3 Lexical Cohesion per T-unit by the Three Proficiency Groups 83
4.1.4 The Use of Cohesive Devices in Relation to the Quality of Writing in the 1st and 2nd Administrations 85
4.1.5 Summary of All Answers to Research Question #1 87
4.2 Errors Made by Students across Three Proficiency Groups 88
4.2.1 Frequency Counts of Incorrectly-used Cohesive Devices across Three Proficiency Groups 88
4.2.2 Qualitative Analysis of Errors and Problems 92
4.2.2.1 Qualitative Analysis of Reference Errors 94
4.2.2.2 Qualitative Analysis of Conjunction Errors 97
4.2.2.3 Qualitative Analysis of Lexical Cohesion Errors 100
4.2.3 Summary of All Answers to Research Question #2 101
4.3 Textbook Analysis and Teacher Interview 102
4.3.1 Textbook Analyses 102
4.3.2 Teacher Interviews 111
4.3.2.1 Teachers’ Knowledge of Cohesion 111
4.3.2.2 Instruction of Cohesive Devices 114
4.3.2.3 Perception of Learners’ Errors 122
4.3.3 Summary of All Answers to Research Question #3 124
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION 125
5.1 Summary of Study’s Main Findings 125
5.2 Discussion of Study’s Main Findings 126
5.2.1 Types of Cohesive Devices that are Used Most Frequently in EFL High School Learners’ compositions 126
5.2.2 The Errors and Problems Related to Cohesive Devices Made by EFL High School Learners 133
5.2.3 The Teaching of Cohesion in Taiwanese Senior High School EFL Textbooks and by School Teachers 135
5.3 Theoretical Implication 137
5.4 Pedagogical Implication 138
5.5 Limitations 141
REFERENCES 144
APPENDIX A Scoring Rubric for GSAT Examination Provided by College Exntrance Examination Center 152
APPENDIX B Adapted IELTS TASK 2 Writing Band 153
APPENDIX C Adapted Taxomony of Cohesive Devices 154
APPENDIX D Interview Protocol 155
APPENDIX E Attachments Used in the Teacher Interview 156
APPENDIX F Summary of Descriptive Statistics in September Data 162
APPENDIX G Summary of Descriptive Statistics in November Data 164
APPENDIX H Summary of Descriptive Statistics of Success Rates 166
APPENDIX I Correlation Matrix between Scores and the Total Cohesive Devices per T-unit in September Data 169
APPENDIX J Correlation Matrix between Scores and the Correctly-used Cohesive Devices per T-unit in September Data 170
APPENDIX K Correlation Matrix between Scores and the Total Cohesive Devices per T-unit in November Data 171
APPENDIX L Correlation Matrix between scores and the Correctly-used Cohesive Devices per T-unit in November Data 172

Ahmed, A. H. (2010). Students' problems with cohesion and coherence in EFL essay writing in Egypt: Different perspectives. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal, 1(4), 211-221.
Al-Jarf, R. S. (2001). Processing of cohesive ties by EFL Arab college students. Foreign Language Annals, 34(2), 141-151.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Longman.
Cai, S. R. (2010). The Use of Cohesive Devices in Taiwanese College Students' Writing: Genre and Writing Quality. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taipei University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan.
Carrell, P. L. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 479-488.
Chen, H. M. (2003). An analysis of lexical cohesion in senior high school students’ compositions.Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chen, W.Y (2006). The use of conjunctive adverbials in the academic papers of advanced Taiwanese EFL learners. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11(1), 113-130.
Chiang, S. (2003). The importance of cohesive conditions to perceptions of writing quality at the early stages of foreign language learning. System, 31(4), 471-484.
Connor, U. (1984). A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second language students’ writing. Paper in Linguistics, 17(3), 301-316.
Cox, B. E., Shanahan, T. & Sulzby, E. (1990). Good and poor elementary readers’ use of cohesion in writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(1), 47-64.
Crowhurst, M. (1987). Cohesion in argument and narration at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 21(2), 185-201.
Ferris, D. R. (1994). Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 414-420.
Fitzgerald, J., & Spiegel, D. L. (1986). Textual cohesion and coherence in children's writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 20(3), 263-280.
Ghasemi, M. (2013). An investigation into the use of cohesive devices in second language writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(9), 1615-1623.
Green, A. (2006). Watching for washback: Observing the influence of the international English language testing system academic writing test in the classroom. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(4), 333-368.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hasan, R. (1984). Cohesion and cohesive harmony. In J. Flood (Ed.), Understanding Reading Comprehension (pp. 181-263). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
Huang, Y. W. (2011). Textual cohesion in the compositions of Taiwanese senior high students. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsin-Chu, Taiwan.
He, L., & Shi, L. (2012). Topical knowledge and ESL writing. Language Testing, 29(3), 443-464.
Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels (NCTE Research Rep. No.3) Champaign, IL:NCTE.
Jacob, H. L., Zinkgraf, S.A., Wormuth, D. R. Hartfiel, V.F. and Hunghey, F.B. (1981). Testing ESL Composition: A Practical Approach. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.
Jafarpur, A. (1991). Cohesiveness as a basis for evaluating compositions. System, 19(4), 459-465.
Kafes, H. (2012). Lexical cohesion: An issue only in the foreign language? English Language Teaching, 5(3), 83-94.
Kang, J.Y. (2005). Written narratives as an index of L2 competence in Korean EFL learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 259-279.
Khalil, A. (1989). A study of cohesion and coherence in Arab EFL college students' writing. System, 17(3), 359-371.
Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 148-161.
Liang, L-R. (1997). Cohesion in Freshman English Compositions: A Quantitative-and- Qualitative Analysis. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Lin, S.Y. (2011). The Improvement of Coherence in EFL Low Achievers’ Writing through the Instruction of Cohesive Devices and Thematic Progression. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ling, H. & Ling S. (2012). Topical knowledge and ESL writing. Language Testing, 29(3), 443-464.
Liu, M., & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 33(4), 623-636.
McCabe, A., & Bliss, L. S. (2003). Patterns of Narrative Discourse: A multicultural life span approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
McCulley, G. A. (1985). Writing quality, coherence, and cohesion. Research in the Teaching of English, 19(3), 269-282.
Milton J., & Tsang, E. S. C. (1993). A corpus-based study of logical connectors in EFL students' writing: directions for future research. In R. Pemberton & E. S. C. Tsang (Eds.), Studies in Lexis (pp. 215-246). Hong Kong: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Neuner, J. L. (1987). Cohesive ties and chains in good and poor freshman essays. Research in the Teaching of English, 21(1), 92-105.
Ong, J. (2011). Investigating the use of cohesive devices by Chinese EFL learners. The Asian EFL Journal, 13(3), 42-65.
Palmer, J. C. (1999). Coherence and cohesion in the English language classroom: the use of lexical reiteration and pronominalisation. RELC Journal, 30(2), 61-85.
Quesada-Inces, R. (2001). Washback Overrides The Curriculum: An Exploratory Study on the Washback Effect of a High-Stakes Standardized Test in the Costa Rican EFL High School Context (Doctoral dissertation, Ph. D. Dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University).
Reid, J. (1992). A computer text analysis of four cohesion devices in English discourse by native and nonnative writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(2), 79-107.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stotsky, S. (1983). Types of lexical cohesion in Expository writing: Implications for developing the vocabulary of academic discourse. College Composition and Communication, 34(4), 430-446.
Tierney, R. J., & Mosenthal, J. H. (1983). Cohesion and textual coherence. Research in the Teaching of English, 17(3), 215-229.
Tseng. Y (2009). Textual Cohesion in Taiwanese College Students' English Writing: A Quantitative and Qualitative Study. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Watson Todd, R., Khongput, S., & Darasawang, P. (2007). Coherence, cohesion and comments on students’ academic essays. Assessing Writing, 12, 10-25.
Wall, D. & Alderson, J. C. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistic. 14(2), 115-129.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, H. (2012). Cohesion and pragmatic theory in second-language writing instruction. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6, 768-776.
Witte, S. P., & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 32(2), 189-204.
Xie, J.Z. (2014). Textual Cohesion in Senior High School Students’ Expository Writings in Southern Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Pingtung University of Education, Pintung, Taiwan.
Yang, W., & Sun, Y. (2012). The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguistics and Education, 23(1), 31-48.
Zhang, A. (2010). Use of cohesive ties in relation to the quality of compositions by Chinese college students. Journal of Cambridge Studies, 5(2-3), 78-86.
Zhang, M. (2000). Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities. RELC Journal, 31(1), 61-95.
Zhang, C. (2013). Effect of instruction on ESL students’ synthesis writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 51-67.
Zhou, X.H. (2007). Application of English cohesion theory in the teaching of writing to Chinese graduate students. US-China Education Review, 4(7), 31-37.
簡茂發 (2010). 大學多元入學方案知檢討與改進計畫英文寫作能力測驗研究結案報告.
取自：http://www.ceec.edu.tw/Research2/Default.aspx
林秀慧 (2013). 103學年度學科能力測驗非選擇題評分標準說明. 選才電子報, 235期,
檢自：http://www.ceec.edu.tw/CeecMag/Articles/235/235-07.html