Awareness of Discourse Features in Teaching Writing Skills
Main Article Content
Abstract
Cohesion is deemed an indispensable component of writing, contributing to both the organisation of texts as well as the reader’s comprehension of the content. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the utilisation of discourse features in the academic writing of students. It specifically focuses on the cohesive devices employed by students and their level of awareness regarding cohesion and coherence. The research was conducted in the Dhanbad district, with a particular emphasis on technical students studying English for specific purposes. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the topic, this study also reviewed and analysed previous research that explored the usage of cohesive devices and the relationship between cohesion frequency and high-quality writing. This background research provided valuable insights into the existing body of knowledge and helped establish a foundation for the present study. The data analysis demonstrates that students possess the ability to incorporate various cohesive devices into their writing, indicating their awareness of discourse features. However, their usage is somewhat limited due to a restricted repertoire of discourse markers, which affected the range and diversity of cohesive devices employed in their writing. Overall, the paper sheds light on the significance of cohesion in academic writing, emphasising its role in organising texts and facilitating reader comprehension. It highlights the current state of students’ awareness and usage of cohesive devices in their writing, providing valuable insights for educators and curriculum developers to enhance students’ proficiency in this area.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Ahmed, Abdel Hamid. 2010. Students’ problems with cohesion and coherence in EFL essay writing in Egypt: Different perspectives. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal 1(4): 211–221. https://doi.org/10.20533/licej.2040.2589.2010.0030
Alarcon, J.B. and Morales, K.N.S. 2011. Grammatical cohesion in students’ argumentative essay. International Journal of English and Literature 2(5): 114–127.
Al-Jarf, R.S. 2001. Processing of cohesive ties by EFL Arab college students. Foreign Language Annals 34(2): 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2001.tb02819.x
Allard, L. and Ulatowska, H.K. 1991. Cohesion in written narrative and procedural discourse of fifth-grade children. Linguistics and Education 3(1): 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898(91)90024-d
Baba, K. 2009. Aspects of lexical proficiency in writing summaries in a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing 18(3): 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.003
Bloor, T., Bloor, M., Bloor, T. and Bloor, M. 2004. The functional analysis of English. 2nd Ed. London: Routledge Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203774854
Carrell, P.L. 1982. Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly 16(4): 479–488. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586466
Choi, S. 1988. The semantic development of negation: A cross-linguistic longitudinal study. Journal of Child Language 15(3): 517–531. https://doi.org/10.1017/s030500090001254x
Crewe, W.J. 1990. The illogic of logical connectives. ELT Journal 44(4): 316–325. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.316
Crossley, S.A. and McNamara, D.S. 2012. Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading 35(2): 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01449.x
Dueraman, B. 2007. Cohesion and coherence in English essays written by Malaysian and Thai medical students. In Proceedings from Southern Thailand English language teaching/cultural change conference. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/4513647/Cohesion_and_Coherence_in_English_Essays_Written_by_Malaysian_and_Thai_Medical_Students (accessed 19 March 2022).
Field, Y. and Yip, L.M.O. 1992. A comparison of internal conjunctive cohesion in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English. RELC Journal 23(1): 15–28.
Grabe, W. and Kaplan, R.B. 1996. Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. London: Routledge Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315835853
Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. 2nd Ed. Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. English Language Series. London: Longman.
. 1989. Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. 2nd Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hays, P.R. 1992. Discourse markers and L2 acquisition. Papers in Applied LinguisticsMichigan 7: 24–34.
Heller, M.F. 1999. Reading-writing connections: From theory to practice. London: Routledge Press.
Hewings, A. and Hewings, M. 2001. Anticipatory “it” in academic writing: An indicator of disciplinary difference and developing disciplinary knowledge. In Academic writing in context, ed. M. Hewings, 199–214. Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press.
Hinkel, E. 2011. What research on second language writing tells us and what it doesn’t. In Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, ed. E. Hinkel, 523–538. New York/London: Routledge.
. 2008. Teaching grammar in writing classes. In New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms, eds. E. Hinkle and S. Fotos, 150–198. New York: Routledge.
. 2004. Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hirvela, A. 2004. Connecting reading and writing in second language writing instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Hu, Z., Brown, D. and Brown, L. 1982. Some linguistic differences in the written English of Chinese and Australian students. Language Learning and Communication 1: 39–49.
Intaraprawat, P. and Steffensen, M.S. 1995. The use of meta-discourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing 4: 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90012-8
Irwin, J.W. 1982. Cohesion and comprehension. In Illinois Reading Council journal. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Jafarpur, A. 1991. Cohesiveness as a basis for evaluating compositions. System 19(4): 459–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251x(91)90026-l
Jalilifar, A. 2008. Discourse markers in composition writings: The case of Iranian learners of English as a foreign language. English Language Teaching 1(2): 114–122. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v1n2p114
Johns, A.M. 1986. Coherence and academic writing: Some definitions and suggestions for teaching. TESOL Quarterly 20(2): 247. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586543
. 1980. Cohesion in written business discourse: Some contrasts. The ESP Journal 1(1): 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-2380(80)90008-6
Johnson, P. 1992. Cohesion and coherence in compositions in Malay and English. RELC Journal 23(2): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829202300201
Karasi, M. 1994. Cohesive features in the expository essays of secondary four (express) and five (normal) students in Singapore. Masters diss., Nanyang Technological University.
Khalil, A. 1989. A study of cohesion and coherence in Arab EFL college students’ writing. System 17(3): 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251x(89)90008-0
Lee, I. 2002. Teaching coherence to ESL students: A classroom inquiry. Journal of Second Language Writing 11(2): 135–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(02)00065-6
Liu, M. and Braine, G. 2005. Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System 33(4): 623–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.02.002
Olateju, M.A. 2006. Cohesion in ESL classroom written texts. Nordic Journal of African Studies 15(3): 314–331. https://doi.org/10.53228/njas.v15i3.30
Palmer, J.R. 1999. Coherence and cohesion in the English language classroom: The use of lexical reiteration and pronominalisation. RELC Journal 30(2): 61–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829903000204
Richards, J.C. and Renandya, W.A. 2002. Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667190
Silva, T. 1993. Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly 27(4): 657–677. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587400
Steffensen, M. and Cheng, X. 1996. Meta-discourse and text pragmatics: How students write after learning about meta-discourse. ERIC document reproduction service. no. ED400709. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED400709 (accessed 8 January 2023)
Wikborg, E. 1990. Types of coherence breaks in Swedish student writing: Misleading paragraph division. In Coherence in writing:Research and pedagogical perspectives, eds. U. Connor and A.M. Johns, 131–148. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), Inc.
Wu, C.J. 2006. Look who’s talking: Language choices and culture of learning in UK Chinese classrooms. Language and Education 20(1): 62–75.
Xuefan, C. 2007. Lexical cohesion in Chinese college EFL writing. CELEA Journal 30: 46–57.
Yang, W. and Sun, Y. 2012. The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguistics and Education 23(1): 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.09.004
Zhang, L.J. 2000. Uncovering Chinese ESL students’ reading anxiety in a study-abroad context. Asia Pacific Journal of Language in Education 3(2): 31–56.