论文部分内容阅读
Abstract：This study aims at investigating cohesive ties applied in IELTS written texts produced by Chinese candidates and IELTS examiners， uncovering the differences in the use of cohesive features between the two groups， and analyzing whether the employment of cohesive ties is a possible problem in the Chinese candidates’ writing. Six written texts are analyzed in the study， with three Chinese candidates’ and three IELTS examiners’ IELTS writing respectively. The findings show that there exist differences in the use of cohesive devices between the two groups. Compared to the IETLS’ examiners’ writing， the group of Chinese candidates employed excessive conjunctions， with relatively less comparative and demonstrative reference ties used in their texts. Additionally， it appears that overusing repetition ties constitutes a potential problem in the candidates’ writing. Implications and suggestions about raising learners’ awareness and helping them to use cohesive devices effectively are discussed.
Key words： comparison； cohesive features； cohesive ties； cohesive devices； IELTS writing；
1. Introduction
A comprehensive analysis of texts’ cohesion has been provided in Halliday and Hasan’ book Cohesion in English， where they provided detailed explanation of text， texture and cohesive ties. A text is either spoken or written， and “best regarded as a semantic unit” （Halliday&Hasan， 1976， p. 2）. Texture is to “express the property of being a text” （Halliday&Hasan， 1976， p. 2）. A text includes texture. In addition， cohesion contributes to texture. As a consequence， a text has cohesive relation. A cohesive tie refers to “a single instance of cohesion” （（Halliday&Hasan， 1976， p. 3）.
Since the publication of Halliday and Hasan’s cohesion theory， there have been a number of empirical studies exploring the use of cohesive ties in ESL writing. Khalil （1989） conducted a study evaluating both cohesion and coherence in Arab college students’ writing， and found they used excessive lexical reiteration. Similarly， Palmer （1999） observed Spanish-speaking students frequently employed lexical reiteration as cohesive patterns in their writing. While Zhang （2000） noticed there were problems in the use of conjunctions， reference and lexical cohesion in the expository compositions produced by Chinese second year English majors. n the study of Chinese undergraduates’ argumentative writing， Liu and Braine （2005） pointed out students “have difficulties in using reference in a consistent and effective way” （p. 633）. It was also found out there was a restricted use of conjunctive and lexical ties in the argumentative essays written by Chinese undergraduates （Liu&Braine， 2005）. Liu （2000） investigated the lack of content lexical ties in ESOL students’ writing， and called for teaching students to learn the use of repetition， synonymy and hyponymy. 2. Comparison of cohesive features between two groups
2.1 Rationale and aims
The experimental studies mentioned above introduced the cohesive features in the writing of English learners， uncovering the problems in their written texts in term of cohesion and coherence. Among these researches， there are explorations analyzing the cohesive patterns in Chinese learners’ writing， some of which focus on the expository writing composed by Chinese English major undergraduates， and others pay attention to the argument essays written by non-English major college students （Zhang， 2000； Liu and Braine， 2005）. However， there are few studies investigating English learners’ cohesive patterns in IELTS writing.
In this article， efforts are made to explore the cohesive features in IELTS writing of Chinese candidates in comparison with those in the IELTS examiners’ written texts. By comparing the application of cohesive features in IETLS writing of Chinese candidates with that in the IELTS examiners’ texts， the article aims to find out the following answers：
a. How are the cohesive ties used in the IELTS writing tasks composed by the Chinese candidates and the IELTS examiners？
b. Are there any differences in the use of cohesive devices between the two groups？
c. To what extent is the use of cohesive ties different between the two groups？
d. Is the use of the cohesive ties one possible problem in the Chinese candidates’ IELTS writing？
2.2 Method
Six texts are analyzed in the study， with three Chinese candidates’ and three IELTS examiners’ IELTS writing respectively. All the six written texts are argument essays corresponding to the second task in IELTS writing. There are three topics in the six written texts， with each one written by a Chinese learner and a sample answer from an IELTS examiner. Four tables are used to analyze the collected data.
3. Findings
This article compares three types of cohesion used by the three Chinese students and the IELTS examiners in their writing， namely reference， conjunction and lexical cohesive devices.
Table 1 The application of reference devices
The most frequent occurrence of reference ties in the Chinese candidates writing is personal reference. By contrast， the examiner used less personal reference devices. But they applied far more demonstrative reference as cohesive ties in their writing than the Chinese learners. As is shown by the data， the figure of demonstrative devices in the learners’ texts is only half of that in their counterparts’ work. With respect to the comparative reference， the IELTS candidates employed far less comparative adjuncts than the examiners. The comparative reference found in the sample answers provided by the examiners is four times the number of that in the students’ texts. Generally， the three Chinese candidates adopted far more personal reference than the examiners， while few demonstrative and comparative references are spotted in their writing. Table 2 The use of conjunctive devices
According to Table 2， the conjunctive adjuncts used in the candidates’ writing are twice the number of those in the IELTS’ sample answers. The majority of the conjunctive devices are additive ties in the written texts produced by the three learners， nearly 70% of the total number. Additionally， it seemed that they tend to apply a great many adjuncts such as “for example”， “and” and “or” in order to add new information. By contrast， the most frequent used conjunctive ties in the sample texts are adversative conjunctions other than additive adjuncts. Furthermore， the additive devices in the examiners’ texts are far less than those in their counterparts’ writing. More causal devices are spotted in the students’ written work， which is more than twice the number of those in the examiners’ sample answers.
Table 3 The application of lexical devices
As is shown， the repetition ties are the most dominant lexical devices the three Chinese candidates applied in their writing. The second most frequent cohesive tie spotted in their writing is synonym， while the number of it is far less than that of repetition ties. Anonym and hyponym are rarely found in their writing. Additionally， there are no meronym and general nouns used as cohesive ties in the students’ texts. In comparison to these learners’ written work， the most frequent lexical devices in the examiners’ texts are synonyms. As to meronyms， neither the three test takers nor the examiners used them as cohesive ties in their texts. There are 9 general nouns employed by the IELTS examiners， while not a single general noun appears in the students’ writing. 10 repetition ties are found in the three sample answers， which is far less than those in the other group’s writing.
4. Conclusion
In comparison with the sample answers produced by the IELTS markers， it seems that the Chinese candidates overly depended on conjunctions as cohesive devices. This is similar to Field and Yip’s （1992） study that the Hong Kong students used more conjunctions than the group of Australians. In addition， the most frequent conjunctions are merely additive ties in the three students’ written work， with few adversative， causal， and temporal adjuncts. As to reference ties， the number of comparative and demonstrative ties found in the examiners’ writing is quite bigger than that in the texts composed by the three Chinese learners. The students are good at using personal reference， but weak in applying demonstrative and comparative devices. As to lexical ties， it seems that the three Chinese IELTS candidates overused repetition devices， which are the most frequent lexical ties in their writing. By contrast， in the sample answers provided by the IELTS examiners， synonyms were extensively applied to avoid repeating the same word or phrase. Accordingly， the excessive use of repletion ties is probably one problem in the students’ writing. As Paltridge （2006） investigated， “it is not good style to continuously repeat the same word in a text” （p. 134）. Another exposed problem in the students’ writing is the distinct lack of antonym， hyponym， and the absence of meronym and general nouns. By contrast， the third frequent lexical devices in the sample answers are general nouns， which “are extremely important in academic writing” （Bloor & Bloor， 1996， p.101）.
Due to the noticeable problems found in the three Chinese candidates’ texts， more efforts should be made to help them to use cohesive ties efficiently. To achieve this， it is essential to raise their awareness of texts’ cohesion and coherence. Activities or exercises focusing on discovering cohesive devices in texts could be implemented in classrooms. Teachers can guide learners to find out what lexical-grammatical items are used to make the given texts cohesive. It is better for students to learn the functions of these devices in context rather than memorize numerous words and phrases isolated from context. Improving the use of cohesive ties is not only beneficial for achieving higher mark in the international test， but can bring advantage to their writing ability in future study as well.
References
[1] Halliday， M. A. K. & Hasan， R. （1976）. Cohesion in English. London： Longman Group Ltd.
[2]McCarthy， M. （1991）. Discourse analysis for language teachers.
Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.
[3]Bloor & Bloor. （1996）. Grammar and text： in The Functional Analysis of English： A Hallidayan Approach. pp. 86-105.
[4]Paltridge， B. （2006）. Discourse Analysis： in Continuum Discourse Series. London： Continuum International Publishing Group.
[5]Liu， M. & Braine， G. （2005）. Cohesive features in argumentative
writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System， 33， 623-636.
[6]Liu， D. （2000）. Writing Cohesion： Using Content Lexical Ties in
ESOL. Retrieved from： http：//exchanges.state.gov/englishteaching/forum/archives/docs/00-38-1-e.pdf.
[7]Zhang， M. （2000）. Cohesive Features in the Expository Writing of
Undergraduates in Two Chinese Universities. RELC Journal， 31（1）， 61-95.
[8]Izumi， Y. （2011）. Creating Cohesion in the Process of Second
Language Writing. Unpublished master’s thesis for master’s degree. California State University， Long Beach， America.
[9]Khalil， A. （1989）. A study of cohesion and coherence in Arab EFL college students’ writing. System， 17（3）， 359-371.
[10]Palmer， J. C. （1999）. Coherence and cohesion in the English language classroom： The use of lexical reiteration and pronominalisation. RELC Journal， 30（2）， 61-85.
[11]Field， Y. &. 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.
Key words： comparison； cohesive features； cohesive ties； cohesive devices； IELTS writing；
1. Introduction
A comprehensive analysis of texts’ cohesion has been provided in Halliday and Hasan’ book Cohesion in English， where they provided detailed explanation of text， texture and cohesive ties. A text is either spoken or written， and “best regarded as a semantic unit” （Halliday&Hasan， 1976， p. 2）. Texture is to “express the property of being a text” （Halliday&Hasan， 1976， p. 2）. A text includes texture. In addition， cohesion contributes to texture. As a consequence， a text has cohesive relation. A cohesive tie refers to “a single instance of cohesion” （（Halliday&Hasan， 1976， p. 3）.
Since the publication of Halliday and Hasan’s cohesion theory， there have been a number of empirical studies exploring the use of cohesive ties in ESL writing. Khalil （1989） conducted a study evaluating both cohesion and coherence in Arab college students’ writing， and found they used excessive lexical reiteration. Similarly， Palmer （1999） observed Spanish-speaking students frequently employed lexical reiteration as cohesive patterns in their writing. While Zhang （2000） noticed there were problems in the use of conjunctions， reference and lexical cohesion in the expository compositions produced by Chinese second year English majors. n the study of Chinese undergraduates’ argumentative writing， Liu and Braine （2005） pointed out students “have difficulties in using reference in a consistent and effective way” （p. 633）. It was also found out there was a restricted use of conjunctive and lexical ties in the argumentative essays written by Chinese undergraduates （Liu&Braine， 2005）. Liu （2000） investigated the lack of content lexical ties in ESOL students’ writing， and called for teaching students to learn the use of repetition， synonymy and hyponymy. 2. Comparison of cohesive features between two groups
2.1 Rationale and aims
The experimental studies mentioned above introduced the cohesive features in the writing of English learners， uncovering the problems in their written texts in term of cohesion and coherence. Among these researches， there are explorations analyzing the cohesive patterns in Chinese learners’ writing， some of which focus on the expository writing composed by Chinese English major undergraduates， and others pay attention to the argument essays written by non-English major college students （Zhang， 2000； Liu and Braine， 2005）. However， there are few studies investigating English learners’ cohesive patterns in IELTS writing.
In this article， efforts are made to explore the cohesive features in IELTS writing of Chinese candidates in comparison with those in the IELTS examiners’ written texts. By comparing the application of cohesive features in IETLS writing of Chinese candidates with that in the IELTS examiners’ texts， the article aims to find out the following answers：
a. How are the cohesive ties used in the IELTS writing tasks composed by the Chinese candidates and the IELTS examiners？
b. Are there any differences in the use of cohesive devices between the two groups？
c. To what extent is the use of cohesive ties different between the two groups？
d. Is the use of the cohesive ties one possible problem in the Chinese candidates’ IELTS writing？
2.2 Method
Six texts are analyzed in the study， with three Chinese candidates’ and three IELTS examiners’ IELTS writing respectively. All the six written texts are argument essays corresponding to the second task in IELTS writing. There are three topics in the six written texts， with each one written by a Chinese learner and a sample answer from an IELTS examiner. Four tables are used to analyze the collected data.
3. Findings
This article compares three types of cohesion used by the three Chinese students and the IELTS examiners in their writing， namely reference， conjunction and lexical cohesive devices.
Table 1 The application of reference devices
The most frequent occurrence of reference ties in the Chinese candidates writing is personal reference. By contrast， the examiner used less personal reference devices. But they applied far more demonstrative reference as cohesive ties in their writing than the Chinese learners. As is shown by the data， the figure of demonstrative devices in the learners’ texts is only half of that in their counterparts’ work. With respect to the comparative reference， the IELTS candidates employed far less comparative adjuncts than the examiners. The comparative reference found in the sample answers provided by the examiners is four times the number of that in the students’ texts. Generally， the three Chinese candidates adopted far more personal reference than the examiners， while few demonstrative and comparative references are spotted in their writing. Table 2 The use of conjunctive devices
According to Table 2， the conjunctive adjuncts used in the candidates’ writing are twice the number of those in the IELTS’ sample answers. The majority of the conjunctive devices are additive ties in the written texts produced by the three learners， nearly 70% of the total number. Additionally， it seemed that they tend to apply a great many adjuncts such as “for example”， “and” and “or” in order to add new information. By contrast， the most frequent used conjunctive ties in the sample texts are adversative conjunctions other than additive adjuncts. Furthermore， the additive devices in the examiners’ texts are far less than those in their counterparts’ writing. More causal devices are spotted in the students’ written work， which is more than twice the number of those in the examiners’ sample answers.
Table 3 The application of lexical devices
As is shown， the repetition ties are the most dominant lexical devices the three Chinese candidates applied in their writing. The second most frequent cohesive tie spotted in their writing is synonym， while the number of it is far less than that of repetition ties. Anonym and hyponym are rarely found in their writing. Additionally， there are no meronym and general nouns used as cohesive ties in the students’ texts. In comparison to these learners’ written work， the most frequent lexical devices in the examiners’ texts are synonyms. As to meronyms， neither the three test takers nor the examiners used them as cohesive ties in their texts. There are 9 general nouns employed by the IELTS examiners， while not a single general noun appears in the students’ writing. 10 repetition ties are found in the three sample answers， which is far less than those in the other group’s writing.
4. Conclusion
In comparison with the sample answers produced by the IELTS markers， it seems that the Chinese candidates overly depended on conjunctions as cohesive devices. This is similar to Field and Yip’s （1992） study that the Hong Kong students used more conjunctions than the group of Australians. In addition， the most frequent conjunctions are merely additive ties in the three students’ written work， with few adversative， causal， and temporal adjuncts. As to reference ties， the number of comparative and demonstrative ties found in the examiners’ writing is quite bigger than that in the texts composed by the three Chinese learners. The students are good at using personal reference， but weak in applying demonstrative and comparative devices. As to lexical ties， it seems that the three Chinese IELTS candidates overused repetition devices， which are the most frequent lexical ties in their writing. By contrast， in the sample answers provided by the IELTS examiners， synonyms were extensively applied to avoid repeating the same word or phrase. Accordingly， the excessive use of repletion ties is probably one problem in the students’ writing. As Paltridge （2006） investigated， “it is not good style to continuously repeat the same word in a text” （p. 134）. Another exposed problem in the students’ writing is the distinct lack of antonym， hyponym， and the absence of meronym and general nouns. By contrast， the third frequent lexical devices in the sample answers are general nouns， which “are extremely important in academic writing” （Bloor & Bloor， 1996， p.101）.
Due to the noticeable problems found in the three Chinese candidates’ texts， more efforts should be made to help them to use cohesive ties efficiently. To achieve this， it is essential to raise their awareness of texts’ cohesion and coherence. Activities or exercises focusing on discovering cohesive devices in texts could be implemented in classrooms. Teachers can guide learners to find out what lexical-grammatical items are used to make the given texts cohesive. It is better for students to learn the functions of these devices in context rather than memorize numerous words and phrases isolated from context. Improving the use of cohesive ties is not only beneficial for achieving higher mark in the international test， but can bring advantage to their writing ability in future study as well.
References
[1] Halliday， M. A. K. & Hasan， R. （1976）. Cohesion in English. London： Longman Group Ltd.
[2]McCarthy， M. （1991）. Discourse analysis for language teachers.
Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.
[3]Bloor & Bloor. （1996）. Grammar and text： in The Functional Analysis of English： A Hallidayan Approach. pp. 86-105.
[4]Paltridge， B. （2006）. Discourse Analysis： in Continuum Discourse Series. London： Continuum International Publishing Group.
[5]Liu， M. & Braine， G. （2005）. Cohesive features in argumentative
writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System， 33， 623-636.
[6]Liu， D. （2000）. Writing Cohesion： Using Content Lexical Ties in
ESOL. Retrieved from： http：//exchanges.state.gov/englishteaching/forum/archives/docs/00-38-1-e.pdf.
[7]Zhang， M. （2000）. Cohesive Features in the Expository Writing of
Undergraduates in Two Chinese Universities. RELC Journal， 31（1）， 61-95.
[8]Izumi， Y. （2011）. Creating Cohesion in the Process of Second
Language Writing. Unpublished master’s thesis for master’s degree. California State University， Long Beach， America.
[9]Khalil， A. （1989）. A study of cohesion and coherence in Arab EFL college students’ writing. System， 17（3）， 359-371.
[10]Palmer， J. C. （1999）. Coherence and cohesion in the English language classroom： The use of lexical reiteration and pronominalisation. RELC Journal， 30（2）， 61-85.
[11]Field， Y. &. 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.