FRAME MARKERS AND COHERENCE IN L2 ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAYS
Academic literacy includes the learners’ ability to use their language knowledge to form articulate texts. In communicative competence models this ability is subsumed under the notion of discourse competence which includes the concepts of cohesion and coherence. Starting from the premise that constructing a coherent text entails efficient use of metadiscourse (i.e. means of explicit text organisation) this study focuses on elements referring to discourse acts, text sequences or stages called frame markers, i.e. items providing framing information about elements of the discourse and functioning to sequence, label, predict and shift arguments, making the discourse clear to readers or listeners (Hyland 2005). It analyses patterns of L2 learners’ use of frame markers, compares them to English native speakers’, and explores the relationship between frame markers and coherence. The corpus includes 80 argumentative essays written by early undergraduate Croatian L2 learners of English at B2 level. The results indicate that foreign language learners’ argumentative essays are characterized by an overuse of a limited set of frame markers. Finally, implications are drawn for teaching and further research.
Ädel, A. (2006) Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Alipour, M., Jahangard, A. and Bemani, M. (2015) ‘Metadiscourse across three varieties of argumentative essays by university students: Native English, Iranian EFL learners and native Persian.’ English for Specific Purposes World 16(45), 1-16.
Altenberg, B. and Tapper, M. (1998) ‘The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners’ written English.’ In: Granger, S. (ed.) Learner English on Computer. Harlow: Longman. 80-93.
Aull, L. L. and Lancaster, Z. (2014) ‘Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison.’ Written Communication 31(2), 151-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055
Bachman L. F. (1990) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. and Palmer, A. (1996) Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bagarić Medve, V. and Pavičić Takač, V. (2013a) Jezična i strategijska kompetencija u stranome jeziku. [Linguistic and Strategic Competence in a Foreign Language]. Osijek: University of Osijek. Filozofski fakultet.
Bagarić Medve, V. and Pavičić Takač, V. (2013b) ‘The influence of cohesion and coherence on text quality: A cross-linguistic study of foreign language learners’ written production.’ In: Piechurska-Kuciel, E. and Szymanska-Czaplak, E. (eds) Language in Cognition and Affect. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer. 111-131.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. New York: Pearson.
Bolton, K., Nelson, G. and Hung, J. (2002) ‘A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing: Research from The International Corpus of English in Hong Kong (ICE-HK).’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7(2), 165-182.
Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983) Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M. (1983) ‘From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy.’ In: Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R. W. (eds) Language and Communication. London: Longman. 2-27.
Carrell, P. (1982). ‘Cohesion is not coherence.’ TESOL Quarterly 16, 479-488. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586466
Celce-Murcia, M. (l995) ‘The elaboration of sociolinguistic competence: Implications for teacher education.’ In: Alatis, J. E., Straehle, C. A. and Ronkin, M. (eds) Linguistics and the Education of Language Teachers: Ethnolinguistic, Psycholinguistic, and Sociolinguistic Aspects. Proceedings of the Georgetown University, Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Georgetown University Press, Washington DC. 699-710.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2007) ‘Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching.’ In: Alcón Soler, E. and Safont Jordà, M. P. (eds) Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning. Dordrecht: Springer. 41-57.
Chen, C. W. (2006) ‘The use of conjunctive adverbials in the academic papers of advanced Taiwanese EFL learners.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(1), 113-130. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.11.1.05che
Chen, C. and Zhang, L. J. (2017) ‘An intercultural analysis of the use of hedging by Chinese and Anglophone academic English writers.’ Applied Linguistics Review 8(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-2009
Cheng, X. and Steffensen, M. S. (1996) ‘Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing.’ Research in the Teaching of English 30(2), 149-181.
Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crismore, A. (1989) Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang.
Crismore, A. and Farnsworth, R. (1990) ‘Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse.’ In: Nash, W. (ed.) The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 119-136.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. and Steffensen, M. (1993) ‘Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students.’ Written Communication 10, 39-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002
Dahl, T. (2004) ‘Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline?’ Journal of Pragmatics 36, 1807-1825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
Dastjerdi, H. V. and Talebinezhad, R. M. (2006) ‘Chain-preserving deletion procedure in cloze: A discoursal perspective.’ Language Testing 23(1), 58-72. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt318oa
Granger, S. (1993) ‘The International Corpus of Learner English.’ In: Aarts, J., de Haan, P. and Oostdijsk, N. (eds) English Language Corpora: Design, Analysis and Exploitation. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi. 57-71.
Granger, S. and Tyson, S. (1996) ‘Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English.’ World Englishes 15(1), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1996.tb00089.x
Grant, L. and Ginther, A. (2000) ‘Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences.’ Journal of Second Language Writing 9, 123-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00019-9
Hu, G. and Cao, F. (2011) ‘Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals.’ Journal of Pragmatics 43(11), 2795-2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
Hůlková, I. (2005) ‘Linking devices in English academic prose.’ In: Povolná, R. and Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (eds) Discourse and Interaction 1. Brno Seminar on Linguistic Studies in English. Proceedings. Brno: Masarykova univerzita. 53-60.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2 nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.
Hyland, K. (1998) ‘Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse.’ Journal of Pragmatics 30, 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
Hyland, K. (2004) ‘Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing.’ Journal of Second Language Writing 13(2), 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
Hyland, K. (2005) Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum. Intaraprawat, P. and Steffensen, M. S. (1995) ‘The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays.’ Journal of Second Language Writing 4(3), 253-272.
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
Johansson, S. (1998) ‘On the role of corpora in cross-linguistic research.’ In: Johansson, S. and Oksefjell, S. (eds) Corpora and Cross-linguistic Research: Theory, Method, and Case Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 3-25.
Jucker, A. H. and Ziv, Y. (1998) ‘Discourse markers: Introduction.’ In: Jucker, A. and Ziv, Y. (eds) Discourse Markers. Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1-13. Kennedy, C. and Thorp, D. (2002) A Corpus-based Investigation of Linguistic Responses to an IELTS Academic Writing Task. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Knoch, U., Macqueen, S. and O’Hagan, S. (2014) An Investigation of the Effect of Task Type on the Discourse Produced by Students at Various Score Levels in the TOEFL iBT®Writing Test. (TOEFL iBT Report No. 23, ETS Research Report No. RR-14-43). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Kobayashi, Y. (2016) ‘Investigating metadiscourse markers in Asian Englishes: A corpus-based approach.’ LIF – Language in Focus Journal 2(1), 19-35.
Mauranen, A. (1993) ‘Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts.’ English for Specific Purposes 12(1), 3-22.
Milton, J. (2001) ‘Elements of a written interlanguage: A computational and corpus-based study of institutional influences on the acquisition of English by Hong Kong Chinese students.’ PhD. thesis. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Milton, J. C. and Tsang, E. S. C. (1993) ‘A corpus-based study of logical connectors in EFL students’ writing: Directions for future research.’ In: Pemberton, R. and Tsang, E. S. C. (eds) Studies in Lexis. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Language Center. 215-246.
Mirshamsi, A. and Allami, H. (2013) ‘Metadiscourse markers in the discussion/conclusion section of Persian and English master’s theses.’ The Journal of Teaching Language Skills 32(3), 23-40.
Mu, C., Zhang, L. J., Ehrich, J. and 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.09.003
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011) ‘An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish.’ Journal of Pragmatics 43(12), 3068-3079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
Murillo, S. (2012) ‘The use of reformulation markers in Business Management research articles. An intercultural analysis.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 17(1), 64-90. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17.1.03mur
Narita, M., Sato C. and Suguira, M. (2004) ‘Connector usage in the English essay writing of Japanese EFL learners’. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation 1(1), 1171-1174.
Pavičić Takač, V. (2018) ‘Sentence-initial interactive metadiscourse and text coherence in EFL argumentative essays.’ Lonaka Journal of Learning and Teaching 9(2), 13-29.
Povolná, R. (2016) ‘A cross-cultural analysis of conjuncts as indicators of the interaction and negotiation of meaning in research articles.’ Topics in Linguistics 17(1), 45-63. https://doi.org/10.1515/topling-2016-0004
Savignon, S. J. (1983) Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Texts and Contexts in Second Language Learning. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Shaw, P. (2009) ‘Linking adverbials in student and professional writing in literary studies: What makes writing mature.’ In: Charles, M., Pecorari, D. and Hunston, S. (eds) Academic Writing: At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse. London and New York: Continuum. 215-235.
Steffensen, M. S. and Cheng, X. (1996) ‘Metadiscourse and text pragmatics: How students write after learning about metadiscourse.’ In: Bouton, L. F. (ed.) Pragmatics and Language Learning. Monograph Series 7. 153-70.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985) ‘Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse.’ College Composition and Communication 36, 82-93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609
van Dijk, T. A. (1977) Text and Context. Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. New York: Longman.
Vogel, R. (2008) ‘Sentence linkers in essays and papers by native vs. non-native writers.’ Discourse and Interaction 1(2), 119-126.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978) Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. and Kim, H. Y. (1998) Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.