Document Type : Research article


1 MA Student, Shahrood University of Technology. Semnan. Iran

2 Associate Professor, Shahrood University of Technology. Semnan. Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Shahrood University of Technology. Semnan. Iran


Although grammatical range and accuracy have been widely explored in EFL learners’ expository essays, texture, which is realized through linguistic resources related to cohesion, has remained relatively unexplored. Guided by Halliday and Hassan’s (1976) model, this study aimed at exploring the frequency and use of these resources by analyzing a random sample of essays written by MA TEFL students at Shahrood University of Technology. Analyses revealed that the participants overused common forms of lexical cohesion, such as repetition and synonymy, but rarely did they use grammatical cohesive ties such as ellipsis and comparative references; hence, the analyzed essays were found to be underdeveloped as far as texture is concerned. The findings of this study have clear implications for materials developers, language teachers, and educators who are involved in second language writing instruction.


  1. Ahmadi, A., & Parhizgar, S. (2017). Coherence Errors in Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing: A rhetorical structure theory. Journal of Language Horizons, Alzahra University, 1(1).
  2. Ahmed, F. E. Y. (2019). Errors of unity and coherence in Saudi Arabian EFL university students’ written paragraph: A case study of College of Science and Arts, Tanumah, King Khalid University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 4(3), 125–155.
  3. Allami, H., & Serajfard, H. (2012). Engagement markers: A technique for improving writing skills. Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation, 1(1), 71-83.
  4. Altikriti, S., & Obaidat, B. (2017). Cohesive ties in scientific texts: An analytical approach. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(5), 127-134.
  5. Anson, C.M., & Beach, R.  (1995). Journals in the classroom: Writing to learn. Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
  6. Andrews, R., Torgerson, C., Beverton, S., Freeman, A., Locke, T., Low, G., Robinson, A., & Zhu, D. (2006). The effect of grammar teaching on writing development. British Educational Research Journal,32(1), 39-55.
  7. Assadi Aidinlou, N., & Shahrokhimehr, H. (2012). The effect of discourse markers instruction on EFL learners’ writing. World Journal of Education, 2(2), 10-16. doi:10.5430/wje.v2n2p10
  8. Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing.  Oxford University Press.
  9. Bahaziq, A. (2016). Cohesive devices in written discourse: A discourse analysis of a student’s essay writing. English Language Teaching. 9(7), 112-119.   
  10. Bartlett, T. (2019). Models of discourse in systemic functional linguistics, in W. L. Bowcher, L. Fontaine and D. Schoenthal (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of systemic functional linguistics, (pp 283-310). Cambridge University Press.
  11. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
  12. Collins, G., & Norris, J. (2017). Written language performance following embedded grammar instruction. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 56(3), 16-30.
  13. Retrieved from
  14. Connor, U. M., & Kramer, M. G. (1995). Writing from sources: Case studies of graduate students in business management. in D. Belcher, & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 155-182). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  15. Farrokhi, F., Ajideh, P., Zohrabi, M., & Panahi, M. (2018). The Impact of discourse-based grammar teaching on writing skill of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 6(3), 57-68.
  16. Fitzgerald, J., & Markham, L. R. (1987). Teaching children about revision in writing. Cognition and Instruction, 4(1), 3-24.
  17. Forey, G., & Thompson, G. (2009). Text type and texture. Equinox.
  18. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997). It can be taught, but it does not develop naturally: Myths and realities in writing instruction. School Psychology Review26(3), 414-424. DOI: 10.1080/02796015.1997.12085875
  19. Halliday, M. A. K. (1964). Descriptive linguistics in literary studies. In A. Duthie (Ed.), English studies today: Third series (pp. 23–9). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  20. Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan. R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Oxford University Press.
  21. Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. Edward Arnold.
  22. Halliday, M.A.K. (1989). Register variation. In M.A.K. Halliday &R. Hasan (Eds.), Language, context, and text (pp. 29-41). Oxford University Press.
  23. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. Edward Arnold.
  24. Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. Routledge.
  25. Halliday, M. A. K. (2009). Text and discourse analysis. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), The essential Halliday (pp.362-402) Continuum.
  26. Hasan, R. (1989). The texture of a text. In M. A. K. Halliday & R. Hasan (Eds.), Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective (pp. 29-43). Oxford University Press.
  27. Hasan. R. (1996). The nursery tale as genre. In C. Cloran, D. Butt& G. Williams (Eds.), Ways of saying: Ways of meaning (pp. 51-72). Cassell.
  28. Hymes, D.H. (1972). On communicative competence. In: J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),
  29. Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269-293). Penguin.
  30. Juniardi, Y. (2013). The coherence and text unity of students’ research paper. Tenth Conference on English Studies Center for Studies on Language and Culture – Atma Jaya Catholic university of Indonesia. 133–137.
  31. Mann, W., & Thompson, S. (1988).  Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243-281.
  32. Masadeh, T. S. (2019). Cohesion and coherence in the writings of Saudi undergraduates majoring in English. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 5(3), 200-208. 2381-7763 (Print); ISSN: 2381-7771 (Online)
  33. Martin, J. R. (2001). Cohesion and texture.In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, (pp. 35-53).Blackwell.
  34. Nur Amin, Y. (2009). The effectiveness of teaching grammar in context to reduce students’ grammatical errors in writing. Unpublished Thesis: State University of Malang (UM), Indonesia.
  35. Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2006). Writing academic English. Pearson Longman.
  36. Paltridge. (2012). Discourse analysis. Sydney.
  37. Satria, R., & Handayani, N. D. (2018). Grammatical cohesive devices analysis in descriptive writing by English Department students in Putera Batam University. Batam, Indonesia, 1, 145-150.
  38. Tomlinson, B. (2010). Principles of effective materials development. In N. Harwood (Ed.), English language teaching materials: Theory and practice, (pp. 81-109). Cambridge University Press.
  39. Webster, J. J. (2019). Key concepts and the architecture of language in the SFL model. In W. L. Bowcher, L. Fontaine& D. Schoenthal (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of systemic functional linguistics (pp. 35-54). Cambridge University Press.
  40. Yunus, M. M., & Haris, S. N. F. (2014). The use of discourse markers among form four SLL students in essay writing. International Education Studies, 7(2), 54-63.  10.5539/ies.v7n2p54