Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton October 16, 2018

Resolving the Terminological Mishmash in Teaching Link Words in EFL Writing

Mehrdad Yousefpoori-Naeim, Lawrence Jun Zhang and Sasan Baleghizadeh

Abstract

One of the characteristics of good writing is appropriate use of cohesive devices, which many learners often find difficult to do. Although there is a substantial body of research on cohesion in writing, little has been documented on how to teach it to EFL students. The present study was an attempt to address this under-researched issue by taking a terminological approach, as the diverse and vague terminology used to describe link words has been found to be more of a hindrance than a facilitator in the teaching/learning process. A total of 16 cohesion-related terms were surveyed to find out about the quality and quantity of their use in a self-built corpus of 14 grammar books of different levels. Furthermore, a test was run to measure students’ familiarity with these terms, and field-notes were taken while scoring the students’ papers in their presence. The findings, in addition to giving insights into the usage points regarding each of the 16 terms, led to drawing a terminological network, which, if used consistently, could help in teaching and learning to use cohesion effectively.


Tel: +64 9 6238899x48750 E-mail address: (L. J. Zhang).

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mr. Sadegh Heydarbakian for helping them with the preparation of the materials for the corpus of the study.

References

Azar, B. S. (2002). Understanding and using English grammar New York: Pearson Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Azar, B. S. (2003). Fundamentals of English grammar (3rd ed.) New York: Pearson Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Azar, B. S., & Hagen, S. A. (2006). Basic English grammar (3rd ed.) New York: Pearson Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Berry, R. (1997). Teachers’ awareness of learners’ knowledge: The case of metalinguistic terminology. Language Awareness 6(2&3), 136-146.10.1080/09658416.1997.9959923Search in Google Scholar

Berry, R. (2009). EFL majors’ knowledge of metalinguistic terminology: A comparative study. Language Awareness 18(2), 113-128. 10.1080/09658416.1997.9959923.Search in Google Scholar

Berry, R. (2010). Terminology in English language teaching Bern: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-0351-0063-1Search in Google Scholar

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1981). A theoretical framework for communicative competence. In A. Palmer, P. Groot, & G. Trosper (Eds.), The construct validation of test of communicative competence (pp. 31-36). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chiang, S. Y. (2003). The importance of cohesive conditions to perceptions of writing quality at the early stages of foreign language learning. System 31, 471–484. 10.1016/j.system.2003.02.002.Search in Google Scholar

Clarke, S. (2008). Macmillan English grammar in context: Essential with key Oxford: Macmillan Education.Search in Google Scholar

Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication 17, 301-316.10.1080/08351818409389208Search in Google Scholar

Connor, U., & Mbaye, A. (2002). Discourse approaches to writing assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22, 263-278. 10.1017/s0267190502000144.Search in Google Scholar

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication 10, 39-71. 10.1177/0741088393010001002.Search in Google Scholar

Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). The development and use of cohesive devices in L2 writing and their relations to judgments of essay quality. Journal of Second Language Writing 32, 1-16. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.003.Search in Google Scholar

Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 984-989). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Search in Google Scholar

Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading 35, 115-136. 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01449.x.Search in Google Scholar

Cudd, E. T., & Roberts, L. (1989). Using writing to enhance content area learning in the primary grades. Reading Teacher 42(6), 392-404. 10.1598/rt.42.6.8.Search in Google Scholar

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Granger, S., & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes 15, 19-29. 10.1111/j.1467-971x.1996.tb00089.x.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, England: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Hinkel, E. (2002). Teaching grammar in writing classes: Tenses and cohesion. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 181-198). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Hinkel, E. (2011). What research on second language writing tells us and what it doesn’t. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, Vol. 2 (pp 523-538). New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9780203836507Search in Google Scholar

Hinkel, E. (2016). Practical grammar teaching: Grammar constructions and their relatives. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Teaching English grammar to speakers of other languages (pp. 171-199). New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9781315695273Search in Google Scholar

Huang, X., Liang, X., & Dracopoulos, E. (2011). A study on the relationship between university students’ Chinese writing proficiency and their English writing proficiency. English Language Teaching 4(2), 55-65. 10.5539/elt.v4n2p55.Search in Google Scholar

Kaakinen, J. K., Salonen, J., Venäläinen, P., & Hyönä, J. (2011). Influence of text cohesion on the persuasive power of expository text. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 52, 201-208. 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00863.x.Search in Google Scholar

Kamalski, J., Lentz, L., Sanders, T., & Zwaan, R. (2008). The forewarning effect of coherence markers in persuasive discourse: Evidence from persuasion and processing. Discourse Processes 45(6), 545-579. 10.1080/01638530802069983.Search in Google Scholar

Knapp, P., & Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, text, grammar Sydney, NSW: UNSW Press.Search in Google Scholar

Knott, A., & Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 18, 35-62. 10.1080/01638539409544883Search in Google Scholar

Leech, G. (2006). A glossary of English grammar Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9780748626915Search in Google Scholar

Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Longo, B. (1994). Current research in technical communication: The role of metadiscourse in persuasion. Technical Communication 41, 348-352.Search in Google Scholar

Mohan, B., & Lo, W. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly 19, 515-534. 10.2307/3586276.Search in Google Scholar

Mu, C., Zhang, L. J., Ehrich, J., & Hong, H. (2015). The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20, 135-148. 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.09.003.Search in Google Scholar

Murphy, R. (2002). Essential grammar in use with answers: A self-study reference and practice book for elementary students of English (2nd edition) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Murphy, R. (2004). English grammar in use: A self-study reference and practice book for intermediate students of English with answers (3rd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Murphy, R. (2005). Advanced grammar in use: A self-study reference and practice book for advanced students of English with answers (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Neumann, A. (2012). Advantages and disadvantages of different text coding procedures for research and practice in a school context. In E. V. Steendam, M. Tillema, G. Rijlaarsdam, & H. van den Bergh (Eds.), Measuring writing: Recent insights into theory, methodology and practices (pp. 33-54). Boston, MA: Brill.Search in Google Scholar

Norment, N. J. (1984). Contrastive Analysis of Organizational Structures and Cohesive Elements in Native and ESL Chinese, English and Spanish Writing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Fordham University, New York, USA.Search in Google Scholar

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics Essex: Pearson Education.Search in Google Scholar

Sanders, T, & Noordman, L. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes 29, 37–60. 10.1207/s15326950dp2901_3.Search in Google Scholar

Spears, R. A. (1991). NTC’s dictionary of grammar terminology. Lincolnwood: National Textbook Company.Search in Google Scholar

Swan, M. (2005). Practical English usage Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Varner, L. K., Roscoe, R. D., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Evaluative misalignment of 10th-grade student and teacher criteria for essay quality: An automated textual analysis. Journal of Writing Research 5, 35–59. 10.17239/jowr-2013.05.01.2.Search in Google Scholar

Vince, M. (2008). Macmillan English grammar in context: Intermediate with key Oxford: Macmillan Education.Search in Google Scholar

Vince, M. (2008). Macmillan English grammar in context: Advanced with key (2nd ed.) Oxford: Macmillan Education.Search in Google Scholar

Walker, E., & Elsworth, S. (2000). Grammar practice for elementary students (2nd ed.) London: Pearson Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Walker, E., & Elsworth, S. (2000). Grammar practice for pre-intermediate students (2nd ed.) London: Pearson Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Walker, E., & Elsworth, S. (2000). Grammar practice for intermediate students (2nd ed.) London: Pearson Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Walker, E., & Elsworth, S. (2000). Grammar practice for upper intermediate students (2nd ed.) London: Pearson Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Wu, H., & Zhang, L. J. (2017). Effects of different language environments on Chinese graduate students’ perceptions of English writing and their writing performance. System 65, 164-173. 10.1016/j.system.2017.02.001.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, L. J. (2013). Second language writing as and for second language learning. Journal of Second Language Writing 22(4), 446-447. 10.1016/j.jslw.2013.08.010.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, L. (2016). Reflections on the pedagogical imports of Western practices for professionalizing ESL/EFL writing and writing-teacher education. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 39(3), 203-232. 10.1075/aral.39.3.01zha.Search in Google Scholar

Zufferey, S., Mak, W., Degand, L., & Sanders, T. (2015). Advanced learners’ comprehension of discourse connectives: The role of L1 transfer across on-line and off-line tasks. Second Language Research 31(3) 389–411. 10.1177/0267658315573349.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-10-16
Published in Print: 2018-09-25

© 2018 FLTRP, Walter de Gruyter, Cultural and Education Section British Embassy