Rudiana Rudiana


This study analyzed EFL students’ argumentative essays concerning cohesive devices based on Halliday and Hasan (1976) in the certain part called grammatical cohesion devices. Thus, the study focuses on analyzing the four main categories of them. Those are (1) reference, (2) substitution, (3) ellipsis, and (4) conjunction. Moreover, this study was aimed at figuring out the realization of grammatical cohesion devices which was centred on determining the type of those devices, the predominant devices realized, and the extent to which the use of those devices helps the texts achieve their cohesion. Moreover, this study employed a descriptive qualitative method. Furthermore, the analysis revealed three main points. Firstly, there were grammatical cohesion devices realized on the EFL students’ argumentative essays such as reference, ellipsis, and conjunction. Secondly, the predominant devices were personal reference and additive conjunction. Finally, the use of grammatical cohesion devices could effectively enhance the quality of students’ writing; it could create the relation and connectedness between one element and another in the text as well. In brief, this study presented deep comprehension about grammatical cohesion devices which covered reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction. Therefore, the use of those could completely improve the quality of writing especially an argumentative essay.  Keywords: grammatical cohesion devices, EFL students’ argumentative essay

Full Text:



Akindele, J. (2011). Cohesive devices in selected ESL academic papers, African Nebula, 3, 99-112. Retrieved from:

Al-Ahdal, A. A. M. H., Alfallaj, F. S., Al-Awaied, S. A, & Al-Hattami, A. A. (2014). A comparative study of proficiency in speaking and writing among EFL learners in Saudi Arabia. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 4(2), 143. USA: Center for Promoting Ideas.

Bahaziq, A. (2016). Cohesive devices in written discourse: A discourse analysis of a student’s essay writing. English Language Teaching, 9(7), 112-115. Retrieved from:, Canadian Center for Science and Education.

Fahy, K. (2008). Writing for publication: Argument and evidence. Elsevier Science Direct: Women and Birth, 8, 2. Retrieved from: 10.1016/j.wombi.2008.04.001

Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education, (8th ed.). New York, USA: The McGraw-hill Companies Inc.

Gerot, L. & Wignell, P. (1994). Making sense of functional grammar, (1st ed.). Sydney, Australia: Gerd Stabler.

Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, UK: Longman Group Limited London.

Jabeen, I., Mehmood, A., & Iqbal M. (2013). Ellipsis, reference & substitution as cohesive devices the bear by Anton Chekhov. Academic Research International, Part I-Social Sciences & Humanities, 4(6), 124-125. Retrieved from:

Kilmova, B.F., & Hubackova, S. (2013). Grammatical cohesion in abstracts, Procedia- Social and Behavioural Science 116, 664-668. Retrieved from: doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.276

Ninsiana, W. (2014). Grammatical cohesion devices on the Indonesian translation of English bidding document, International Journal of Language and Linguistics. 2(6), 361-67. Retrieved from: http//

Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2006). Writing academic English, (4th ed.). New York, USA: Person Education.

Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H.E. (2001). The handbook of discourse analysis. Malden, Massachusetts, USA, Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publisher Ltd.

Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H.E. (2015). The handbook of discourse analysis, (2nd ed.). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. & Bloomsbury Plc.

Taboada, M. T. (2004). Building coherence and cohesion. Philadelphia, USA: John Benjamin B.V.

Tanskanen, S. K. (2006). Collaborating towards coherence. Philadelphia, USA: John Benjamin B.V.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.