Errors were categorized as having vague reference if one specific presupposed item could not be found, either because the reference of the item was too broad, or it pointed to two or more possible items. These problems were not immediately apparent. Due to the tolerance of vagueness and ambiguity in texts as open-minded readers approaching texts with the intention of making sense of them, many of the examples cited below will not occur as outright problematic. In the process of the reference analysis of these texts; however, it occurred that in RAs those determiners and comparative items do have clear and specific presupposed items that in MA theses did not. In RAs, studies in the literature review section are often referred to by determiners or items from our comparative reference category; however, always with some sort specification of which studies they are talking about (often in the same sentence as a citation). This specification is not provided in many low-rated theses, as in s. 214 from LTH9 below, where in addition to the vague item many we also find research in a plural form. In this sentence many would need either specification in the same sentence or to establish a cohesive tie with something else in another part of the text.

 

Examples for the specification of reference in the same sentence as done by expert writers is shown for few from s. 13 in RA1 and other in s. 17 from RA2:

 

Some thesis writers also attempt such specification, but not necessarily with the right citation form. This is illustrated in the following extract:

 

Likewise, quantities are specified in brackets for clarity:

 

In RA4 below, the components that each refers to are specified in brackets, and the time periods referred to are also given a name to serve as specific presupposed elements to avoid ambiguity in later reference.

 

Specifying the referent in the same sentence (see Table 19: non-cohesive type B) is much more common in RAs, while MA theses contain more exophoric items (non-cohesive type C).