Coherence: Implications for teaching writing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33919/esnbu.16.1.2Keywords:
Coherence, organizational patterns, topical structure analysis, rhetorical models, teaching writingAbstract
The paper presents the results of a study consisting of three text-based analyses of groups of student argumentative essays written on the same topic. The aim was to identify text-based features of coherence in L1 and L2. The analyses were carried out on essays written by first and third year undergraduates at the Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Philology "Blazhe Koneski" at the Ss. "Cyril and Methodius" University in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia who wrote in their first language Macedonian, L1, and in English as a foreign language, L2. The goal was to recognise the importance of discourse organisation in academic writing in L1, and to examine factors which may affect second language learners' competence in the organisation of written discourse in English as a foreign language, L2. The paper points out the differences in the rhetorical models in Macedonian and English written discourse and how these differences may have an impact on writing assessment and the teaching of writing at university level.
References
Bamberg, B. (1983). What Makes a Text Coherent? College Composition and Communication, 34(4), 417-429.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1990). Pragmatic word order in English composition. In U. Connor & A.M. Johns (Eds.) Coherence: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 43-65). Washington, DC: TESOL
Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P. (1982). Cohesion is not Coherence. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 16. No.4.
Carrell, P. (1987). Text as interaction: Some implications of text analysis and reading research for ESL composition. In U. Connor & B. Kaplan (Eds.) Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp.45-55). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Cheng, X., & Steffensen, M. S. (1996). Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2), 149-181.
Clyne, M., (1987). Discourse structures and discourse expectations: Implications for Anglo-German academic communication in English. In Smith, L. (eds.) Discourse Across Cultures: Strategies in World Englishes. Prentice Hall: New York, London.
Connor, U. & Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Connor, U. & Schneider, M. (1990). Analyzing topical structure in ESL essays. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 12. 411-427.
Connor, U. (1984b). A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second language students’ writing. Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication, 17, 301-316.
Connor, U. and Farmer, F. (1990). The teaching of topical structure analysis as a revision strategy for ESL writers. In B. Kroll (ed.) Second Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom. (pp.126-139). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U. and Lauer, J. (1985) Understanding persuasive essay writing: linguistic rhetorical approach. Text 5, 309-326
Crismore, A., Markanen, R., and Steffensen, M.S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71.
Dimitrova-Gjuzeleva, S. (2001). Argumentative essay writing in English – what should we assess? Bulgarian foreign language teaching journal I, pp. 20-26.
Duchevska, A. (2005). Analiza na tekstot i diskursot vo makedonskiot yazik [Text analysis and discourse of Macedonian language] (Doctoral dissertation, Ss. “Cyril and Methodius†University, Faculty of Philology “Blazhe Koneskiâ€, Skopje).
Evensen, L. S. (1990). Pointers to superstructure in student writing. In U. Connor & A.M. Johns (Eds.) Coherence: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp.169-183). Washington D.C: TESOL.
Firbas, J. (1974). Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to problems in functional sentence perspective. In F. Danes (Ed.). Papers in functional sentence perspective (pp.11-37). The Hague: Mouton.
Firbas, J. (1986). On the dynamics of written communication in light of the theory of Functional Sentence Perspective. In C. Cooper & Greenbaum (Eds.), Studying writing: Linguistic approaches (pp.40-71). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Georgievska-Sarzhoska, Е. (2010). Diskursni marker i coherentnost [Discourse markers and coherence]. Yearbook, 36, 115-131. Ss. “Cyril and Methodius†University, Faculty of Philology “Blazhe Koneskiâ€. Skopje.
Georgievska-Sarzhoska, Е. (2011). Sporeduvanje i organizatziski shemi na J1 i J2 [Comparing the organizational patterns of L1 and L2]. Yearbook, 37. Ss. “Cyril and Methodius†University, Faculty of Philology “Blazhe Koneskiâ€. Skopje.
Grimes, Joseph. E. (1975). The Thread of Discourse. Mouton Publishing. Walter de Gruyter
Halliday, M.A.K., & Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London. Longman.
Hoey, M. (1983). On the Surface of Discourse. London. George Allen and Unwin.
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE Research report no. 3. Champaign, IL, USA: NCTE
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological review, 85, 363-394.
Knott, A., and Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 18 (1), 36-62.
Lautamatti, L. (1987). Observations on the development of the topic in simplified discourse. In Connor, U, & Kaplan, R.B. (Eds). Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 87-114.
Lee, I. (1998). Enhancing ESL students’ awareness of coherence creating mechanisms in writing. TESL Canada Journal, 15 (2), 36-49.
Lee, I. (2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: a classroom inquiry. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 135-159. Pergamon.
Minova-Gjurkova, L. (1997). Svrzuvachki sredstva vo makedonskiot yazik [Linking devices in Macedonian language]. Detska radost. Skopje.
Minova-Gjurkova, L. (2000). Sintaksa na makedonskiot standarden yazik [Syntax of standard Macedonian language]. Magor. Skopje.
Minova-Gjurkova, L. (2003). Stilistikata na sovremeniot makedonski yazik [Stylistics of modern Macedonian language]. Magor. Skopje.
Pandev, D. (2004). Govorenje i pishuvanje: Veshtini. [Speaking and Writing: Skills.] Gimnazisko obrazovanie. Prosvetno delo. Skopje.
Quirk, R. Greenbaum, S. Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1972). A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing Oxford University Press: Oxford
Sasaki, M., & Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students’ expository writing.Language Learning, 46, 137-174.
Wikborg, E. (1985). Types of coherent breaks in university student writing. In N. E. Enkvist (Ed.), Coherence and composition: A symposium (pp.98-133). Ã…bo. Finland: Research Institute of the Ã…bo Akademi Foundation.
Wikborg, E. (1987). Coherence breaks in Swedish student writing: Misleading paragraph division. Unpublished manuscript. In Connor, U. & Schneider, M. (1990) Analyzing Topical Structure in ESL Essays. SSLA, 12, 411-427. Cambridge University Press.
Witte, S. (1983a). Topical structure and revision: An exploratory study. College Composition and Communication. 34, 313-341.
Witte, S. (1983b). Topical structure and writing quality: Some possible text-based explanations of readers’ judgments of students’ writing. Visible Language, 17, 177-205.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All published articles in the ESNBU are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don't have to license their derivative works on the same terms.
In other words, under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license users are free to:
Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
Attribution (by) - All CC licenses require that others who use your work in any way must give you credit the way you request, but not in a way that suggests you endorse them or their use. If they want to use your work without giving you credit or for endorsement purposes, they must get your permission first.
NonCommercial (nc) - You let others copy, distribute, display, perform, and modify and use your work for any purpose other than commercially unless they get your permission first.
If the article is to be used for commercial purposes, we suggest authors be contacted by email.
If the law requires that the article be published in the public domain, authors will notify ESNBU at the time of submission, and in such cases the article shall be released under the Creative Commons 1 Public Domain Dedication waiver CC0 1.0 Universal.
Copyright
Copyright for articles published in ESNBU are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. Authors retain full publishing rights and are encouraged to upload their work to institutional repositories, social academic networking sites, etc. ESNBU is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.
Exceptions to copyright policy
Occasionally ESNBU may co-publish articles jointly with other publishers, and different licensing conditions may then apply.
