Maintaining coherence in research argument: identifying qualitative differences between experts’ and students’ texts
-
Peichin Chang
Peichin Chang holds a PhD in Education from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Her specialty is in academic writing, discourse analysis and learning technologies in language teaching. She is currently Associate Professor in the Department of English (TESOL track), National Taiwan Normal University.
Abstract
This study explores coherence as a textual phenomenon in research writing Introductions. Drawing on Systemic Functional Linguistics, the analysis identifies differences in the quality of coherence in both experts’ and students’ texts by examining the semantic overlaps between the global Themes, followed by the quality of lexical chain deployment, and by how these inform the development of three rhetorical moves. Close analysis was performed on four texts, drawn from the corpora comprising 35 expert and 35 student research Introduction texts. The analysis reveals that the expert and student writers feature different paths in arguing. At global levels, the experts tend to have the key concepts resonate and their arguments are gradually narrowed down to occupy the niche of the study. The key concepts therefore often form into long and mixed chains both to sustain the line of the argument and to elaborate the difficult concepts. In the students’ texts, the key concepts are less consistently deployed, evidenced in how different paragraphs can develop different sets of concepts. Their long chains are also often formed by static terms which do not effectively develop the argument. Critical concepts often do not occupy prominent positions or are not mentioned earlier to allow for elaboration. When combined, these features compromised the development of the rhetorical move in the students’ texts.
About the author
Peichin Chang holds a PhD in Education from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Her specialty is in academic writing, discourse analysis and learning technologies in language teaching. She is currently Associate Professor in the Department of English (TESOL track), National Taiwan Normal University.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Taiwan (MOST 104-2410-H-003-057).
Appendix
| Conventions | |
|---|---|
| words | Long chains |
| words | Secondary chains |
| words | Other chains |
The experts’ texts
| Text 1: | Casanave, Christine P. 2010. Taking risks?: A case study of three doctoral students writing qualitative dissertations at an American university in Japan. Journal of Second Language Writing 19(1). 1–16. |
| Text 2: | Duff, Patricia. A. 2010. Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 30. 169–192. |
References
Albufalasa, Mervat & Isa Mohammed. 2013. The effect of the explicit teaching of thematic structure and generic structure on EFL students’ writing quality and motivation. Unpublished PhD Dissertations, University of Leicester.Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Bethany Gray. 2010. Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(1). 2–20.10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian & George Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511805226Search in Google Scholar
Bruce, Ian. 2008. Academic writing and genre. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Castro, Carolyn D. 2004. Cohesion and the social construction of meaning in college students writing in L2 English. Asia Pacific Education Review 5(2). 215–225.10.1007/BF03024959Search in Google Scholar
Chang, Peichin. 2016. Recurrent writing issues in developing EFL novice writers’ academic discourse competence. Studies in English Language and Literature 38. 117–142.Search in Google Scholar
Chang, Peichin. 2017. Evaluating coherence in experts’ and students’ research arguments: An exploratory study. English Teaching & Learning 41(2). 1–20.Search in Google Scholar
Connor, Ulla. 1984. A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second language students’ writing. Paper in Linguistics 17(3). 301–316.10.1080/08351818409389208Search in Google Scholar
Crossley, Scott A & Danielle S. McNamara. 2009. Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 18(2). 119–130.10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.002Search in Google Scholar
Crossley, Scott A & Danielle S. McNamara. 2010. Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. In Stellan Ohlsson & Richard Catrambone (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 984–989. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Search in Google Scholar
Eggins, Suzanne. 2004. An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. 2nd edn. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2008. Theme zones in English media discourse: Forms and functions. Journal of Pragmatics 40(9). 1543–1568.10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.016Search in Google Scholar
Fries, Peter H. 1995. A personal view of theme. In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Thematic development in English texts, 1–19. London, UK: Pinter.Search in Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, Alexandra & Dionysis Goutsos. 1999. Discourse analysis. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gupta, Renu. 1995. Managing general and specific information in Introductions. English for Specific Purposes 14(1). 59–75.10.1016/0889-4906(94)00026-ASearch in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael & Alexander Kirkwood. 1993. Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education 5(2). 93–116.10.1016/0898-5898(93)90026-7Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael, Alexander Kirkwood & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael, Alexander Kirkwood & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1985. Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1984. Coherence and cohesive harmony. In James Flood (ed.), Understanding reading comprehension, 181–219. Newark: International Reading Association.Search in Google Scholar
Herbel-Eisenmann, Beth A & Samuel Otten. 2011. Mapping Mathematics in classroom discourse. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 42(5). 451–485.10.5951/jresematheduc.42.5.0451Search in Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 1983. On the surface of discourse. Boston: Allen & Unwin.Search in Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 2011. Another perspectives on coherence and cohesive harmony. In Walter de Gruyter, (ed.), Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs [TiLSM]: Functional and Systemic Linguistics: Approaches and Uses, 385–413. Berlin, DEU: Walter de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2004. Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.23927Search in Google Scholar
Khalil, Aziz. 1989. A study of cohesion and coherence in Arab EFL college students’ writing. System 17(3). 359–371.10.1016/0346-251X(89)90008-0Search in Google Scholar
Kintsch, Walter, & van Dijk, Teun. A. 1978. Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review 85(5). 363–394.10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Icy. 2002. Teaching coherence to ESL students: A classroom inquiry. Journal of Second Language Writing 11(2). 135–159.10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00065-6Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Meihua & George Braine. 2005. Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System 33(4). 623–636.10.1016/j.system.2005.02.002Search in Google Scholar
Lotfipour-Saedi, Kazem & Shahin Moghaddassi-Sarabi. 2004. Lexical chains, their discoursal vales and cognitive effects: Explorations in the setting of a short story by Edgar Allan Poe. Journal of Faculty of Letters and Humanities 47(190). 71–87.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 1993. Live as a noun: Arresting the universe in science and humanities. In Michael A. K. Halliday & James R. Martin (eds.), Writing Science: Literacy and discursive power, 221–267. Pittsburgh, Penn: University of Pittsburgh Press.Search in Google Scholar
Morris, Jane & Graeme Hirst. 1991. Lexical cohesion computed by thesaural relations as an indicator of the structure of text. Computational Linguistics 17(1). 21–48.Search in Google Scholar
Parsons, Gerald. 2011. Cohesion coherence: Scientific texts. In Walter de Gruyter (ed.), Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs [TiLSM]: Functional and Systemic Linguistics: Approaches and uses, 415–429. Berlin, DEU: Walter de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Plakans, Lia & Atta Gebril. 2017. Exploring the relationship of organization and connection with scores in integrated writings assessment. Assessing Writing 31. 98–112.10.1016/j.asw.2016.08.005Search in Google Scholar
Rogers, Sandra H. 2004. Evaluating textual coherence: A case study of university business writing by EFL and native English-speaking students in New Zealand. RELC Journal 35(2). 135–147.10.1177/003368820403500203Search in Google Scholar
Schiftner, Barbara. 2004. (Non-)signalling of coherence structures in English learner writing. In Helmut Gruber & Gisela Redeker (eds.), The pragmatics of discourse coherence: Theory and applications, 243–266. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers.10.1075/pbns.254.09schSearch in Google Scholar
Silber, Gregory H & Kathleen F. McCoy. 2002. Efficiently computed lexical chains as an intermediate representation for automatic text summarization. Computational Linguistics 28(4). 487–496.10.1162/089120102762671954Search in Google Scholar
Swales, John M. 2004. Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524827Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Meisuo. 2000. Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities. RELC Journal 31(1). 61–95.10.1177/003368820003100104Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Maintaining coherence in research argument: identifying qualitative differences between experts’ and students’ texts
- Internet users’ neutralization of the morality of advertisement blocking
- Feeling spirits: sharing subjective paranormal experience through embodied talk and action
- Analyzing ideological complexes from the perspective of modalities
- The fictionalized reader in popular science: reader engagement with the scientific community
- Graffiti slogans and the construction of collective identity: evidence from the anti-austerity protests in Greece
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Maintaining coherence in research argument: identifying qualitative differences between experts’ and students’ texts
- Internet users’ neutralization of the morality of advertisement blocking
- Feeling spirits: sharing subjective paranormal experience through embodied talk and action
- Analyzing ideological complexes from the perspective of modalities
- The fictionalized reader in popular science: reader engagement with the scientific community
- Graffiti slogans and the construction of collective identity: evidence from the anti-austerity protests in Greece
