摘要
過去的研究主要探討篇章凝結及寫作優劣之間的關係，然而研究學者對高低成就寫作者凝結詞的使用有無差異性則有不同看法。此外，少有學者在研究凝結詞時把文體也列為變項，尤其在臺灣，尚無學者比較不同能力的第二語言學習者在不同文體裡凝結詞的使用，因此，此研究目標試著以質與量化的方式，探討臺灣大學生不同能力及寫作不同文體下，篇章凝結性的研究。一共有六十個臺灣師範大學的大學生參與這份研究，所有的人都必須寫敘述文及說明文，並依據寫作的分數來分高成就及低成就組。之後，計算高低組文章所有凝結詞並依據Halliday &Hasan’s (1976), Stostky (1983)及Hasan’s (1985)三人凝結詞的架構來做為研究分析的新架構。此外，不適當的凝結詞也會被挑出來進行寫作者錯誤的質性分析。
主要研究的發現可從二方面來做摘要—量化及質化。量化方面，首先，高低成就寫作者在凝結詞的總數上有顯著差異，其顯示能力是主要影響凝結性多寡的要素。此外，高成就組裡，指涉詞(reference)比例最多，接著是連接詞(conjunction)、取代詞(substitution)及省略詞(ellipsis)，低成就組裡也可以找到一樣的比例順序。另外，在敘述文或說明文裡，高成就者比低成就者用比較多的同義字(synonym)，第二，文體比較上，高低二組在二文體中凝結詞的總數沒有顯著差異。此外，二組在敘述文裡都使用較多的人稱指涉詞(pronominal reference)，此現象或許顯露出文體可能對作者指涉詞的使用有影響，因為在敘述文裡，角色的闡述說明是不可欠缺的，及故事的發展主要以角色為中心發展。另外，在說明文裡有較多的反義詞(antonym)被使用，這可能也顯示出文體對反義詞的使用有影響，因為在說明文裡，從不同的角度來說明主題，進而支持論點是很重要的。
質化方面，首先，在敘述文及說明文，低成就者比高成就者有更多不適當的凝結詞錯誤，低成就者因基礎文法結構和基本用字拼讀很弱，導致於他們寫出的凝結詞上都帶有錯誤。第二，在敘述文裡，高低成就主要問題在於欠缺及不必要定冠詞的使用，而在說明文裡，高低成就主要問題在說代名詞的使用上出現無法辯認的指涉詞。至於詞彙凝結性方面，二組都有用字問題。第三，文體比較方面，文體對高低成就的錯誤沒有影響力。總結來說，程度是主要影響凝結詞總數的指標，而文體差異在寫作者凝結性的使用上沒有很大差異。

Abstract
Previous research mainly concerns the connection cohesion and coherence have with writing quality; yet, researchers of the cohesion analysis have not reached agreement as to whether there are significant differences in high and low proficiency groups’ cohesive devices. Further, few have conducted research into cohesion regarding the written mode as a variable, especially within a Taiwanese context, where none has been focused on the comparison of L2 students’ employment of cohesive devices, especially writers of different levels and in different genres. The aim of this study is thus to explore the employment by Taiwanese college students of cohesive devices in writing in terms of distinct proficiency levels and different genres quantitatively and qualitatively. A total of 60 college students from National Taiwan Normal University participated in the study. All participants were required to compose narrative or expository writing and consequently divided into high and low proficiency groups based on their writing scores. Subsequently, the total number of cohesive devices contained in both high and low proficiency writers’ writing was calculated and analyzed with the combined model of Halliday and Hasan’s (1976), Stotsky’s (1983) and Hasan’s (1985) taxonomy of cohesion. Additionally, any inappropriate use of cohesive devices was identified to conduct the qualitative analysis of the participants’ errors.
The major findings of the study can be summarized in respect of two aspects—the quantitative and the qualitative. Quantitatively, first, there were significant differences in high and low proficiency writers’ overall number of cohesive devices both in narration and in exposition, which revealed that proficiency level was the predominant factor influencing the numerous cohesive devices. Also, it was found that in writing from the high proficiency group, reference was the dominant cohesive device, followed by conjunction, substitution and ellipsis in narration and in exposition. The same order of frequency also appeared in low proficiency groups’ writing. Besides, high proficiency writers used more synonym than low proficiency ones in narration and in exposition. Secondly, there were no significant differences in both high and low proficiency writers’ overall number of cohesive devices between narrative and expository writing. Further, both groups used more pronominal reference in narration than in exposition, which perhaps revealed that the discourse type may influence a writers’ employment of referential cohesive devices since in narrative writing, the elaboration of characters is indispensable and the development of the story mainly revolves around the characters. Additionally, more antonym was found in exposition which probably shows that genres affect the use of antonym because in the expository writing explaining the topic from different sides to support a thesis is essential.
Turning to the qualitative aspect, first, in narration and in exposition, low proficiency writers had much more inappropriate use of cohesive devices than their high proficiency counterparts. Low proficiency writers were found to be suffering deficiency in terms of basic grammatical structures and basic vocabulary skills (e.g., spellings, plural inflection) leading them to produce more inappropriate use of cohesive devices. Secondly, in narration, both groups had major problems with the lack/addition of definite articles in the text. Meanwhile in exposition, they both had problems in unclear referent of the pronominal references. With regard to lexical cohesive devices, both groups had major problems with word choice. Thirdly, concerning genre, within the errors made by high proficiency writers there was no difference between narration and exposition and it was also found that genres made no impact on the low proficiency group’s inappropriate use of cohesive devices. To conclude, the proficiency level was the dominant factor influencing the distribution of the cohesive devices and genre difference has no great influence on the writers’ use of cohesive devices.

REFERENCES
Ahring, J. (1979-1980). Composition research: problems of entering college freshmen and implications for teaching. English Teaching and Learning, 4.3, 72-77.
Littlefair, B. A. (1991). Reading all types of writing. USA: Open University Press.
Bamberg, M. G. W. (1987). The acquisition of narratives: Learning to use language. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1990). Pragmatic word order in English composition. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing (pp. 43-46). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). A Second Look at T-Unit Analysis: Reconsidering the Sentence. TESOL Quarterly, 26.1, 390-395.
Britton, B. K., & Black, J. B. (1985). Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text. New Jersey: LEA.
Carrell, L. P. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 6, 479-487.
Celce-Mricia, M, & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The Grammar Book. USA: Heinle & Heinle.
Chang, V. W. (1995). Freshman English composition: An error analysis from the discourse perspective (NSC84-2411-H003-001). National Science Council of the Republic of China.
Chen, Hui-mi. (2003). An analysis of lexical cohesion in senior high school student’s composition. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chao, Chi-fen. (2002). An analysis of the usage of personal pronouns in senior high school students’ compositions. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Cherry, R., & Cooper, C. (1980). Cohesive ties and discourse structure: A study of average and superior texts at four grade levels. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Learning and Instruction, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Chou, Min Chieh. (2000). Lexical cohesion and the quality of the EFL writing text. 華岡外語學報, 199-209.
Connor, U., & Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. Amesterdam: Addison-Wesley.
Cox, B. E.., Timothy, S., & Elizabeth, S. (1990). Good and poor elementary reader’s use of cohesion in writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 47-65.
Cox, B. E. (1991) Children’s knowledge of organization, cohesion, and voice in written exposition. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(2), 179-218.
Crowhurst, M. (1981). Cohesion in argumentative prose. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA.
Crowhurst, M. (1987). Cohesion in argument and narration at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 185-201.
Dillon, G.. L. (1981). Constructing Texts: Elements of a theory of composition and style. USA: Indiana University Press.
Dressler, W. U. (1978). Current trends in text linguistics. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
Dressler, W. U., & de Beaugrande, R-A. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman.
Ebbitt, W., & Ebbitt, D. R. (1990). Index to English (8th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Farghal, M. (1992). Naturalness and the notion of cohesion in EFL writing classes. IRAL, 30, 45-50.
Fine, J. (1994). How language works: Cohesion in normal and nonstandard communication (Vol. 51). NJ: Ablex.
Ferris, D. R. (1994). Lexical and syntactic feature of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 414-420.
Frodesen, J, & Eyring, J. (2000). Grammar dimensions: form, meaning, and use. Boston: Hein & Heinle.
Goldman, S. R, & Murray, D. J. (1992). Knowledge of connectors as cohesion devices in text: A comparative study of native-English and English-as-a-second-language speakers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 4, 504-519.
Hasan, R. (1984). Coherence and cohesive harmony. In J. Flood (Ed.), Understanding reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Ruqaiya, H. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
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.
Halliday, M. A. K., Teubert, W., & Yallop, C. (2004). Lexicology and corpus linguistics: An introduction. London: Continuum.
Hinkel, E. (2001). Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts. Applied Language Learning, 12, 111-132.
Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. USA: L. Erlbaum.
Huang, Meng-fen. (2003). A study on the use of conjunctions in compositions by Taiwanese senior-high-school students. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hyland, Ken. (2003). Second language writing. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, Ken. (2004). Genre and second language writing. USA: Michigan University Press.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. USA: John Benjamins.
Jin, W. (2001). A qualitative study of cohesive in Chinese graduate students’ writing: variations across genres and proficiency levels. Paper presented at the Symposium on Second Language Writing at Purdue University, Indiana, United States.
Kaplan, J. D., & Palhina, E. M. G. (1982). Non-native speakers of English and their composition abilities: A review and analysis. In W. Frawley (Ed.), Linguisitcs and Literacy (pp. 425-57). New York: Plenum.
Kuo, Chih-hua. (1995). Cohesion and coherence in academic writing: From lexical choice to organization. RELC Journal, 26, 47-62.
Lee, M. Y.-P. (2003). Structure and cohesion of English narratives by Nordic and Chinese students. In A. Dahl (Eds.). Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, USA, 31 (2), 290-302.
Liang, Li-Ren. (1997). Cohesion in freshman English compositions: A quantitative-and qualitative analysis. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Liu, Chih-Fang. (2001). Text analysis: Cohesion and coherence. 板中學報, 4, 23-40.
Liu, Meihua. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 33, 623-636.
Littlefair, A. B. (1991). Reading all types of writing. USA: Open University Press.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2002). “Something to shoot for” a systematic functional approach to teaching genre in secondary school science. In A.M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: multiple perspectives (pp. 17-42). NJ: LEA.
Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.
Moe, J. A. (1979). Cohesion, coherence and the comprehension of text. Journal of Reading, 16-20.
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 analyses of organizational structures and cohesive elements in English, Spanish (ESL-) and Chinese (ESL-) students’ writing in narrative and expository 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.
Pritchard, R. J. (1981). A study of the cohesion devices in the good and poor compositions of eleventh graders (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 688A.
Roen, H. D., & Gene, L. P. (1984). The effects of selected text-forming structures on college freshmen’s comprehension of expository prose. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 8-25.
Saeed, J. I. (1997). Semantics. USA: Blackwell.
Scarcella, R. & J. Brunak. (1981). On speaking politely in a second language. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 59-75.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. USA: 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, 430-446.
Taylor, L. (1992). Vocabulary in action. UK: Prentice Hall.
Tannen, D. (1982). Spoken and written language: Exploding orality and literacy. USA: Ablex.
Tierney, J. R., & Mosenthal, H. J. (1983). Cohesion and textual coherence. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 215-229.
Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R. & Vetter, Eva. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis. London: SAGE.
Todorov, T. (1990). Genres in discourse. USA: Cambridge.
Vince, M. (2008). Macmillan English Grammar in Context. Oxford: Macmillan.
Witte, S. P., & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing ability. College Composition and Communication, 32, 189-204.