Tartalomjegyzék

• Referential Cohesion in Academic Writing • A descriptive and exploratory theory- and corpus-based study of the text-organizing role of reference in written academic discourse
• Copyright page
• Acknowledgements
• LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
• 1. INTRODUCTION
• chevron_right2. A GENRE-ORIENTED APPROACH TO ANALYSING COHESION IN WRITTEN ACADEMIC DISCOURSE
  • 2.1. Introduction
  • chevron_right2.2. Definition of key concepts
    • 2.2.1. Text, discourse, genre
    • 2.2.2. Cohesion, coherence and continuity
    • 2.2.3. English for academic purposes
    • 2.2.4. Novice or expert versus native or non-native researcher
  • chevron_right2.3. Towards analyzing ‘genres’: written discourse analysis since the 1970s
    • 2.3.1. Psycholinguistic approaches
    • 2.3.2. Discourse beyond surface level features
    • 2.3.3. Contrastive rhetoric since the 1990s: multiple approaches, multiple methods
    • 2.3.4. Recent developments in written discourse analysis
  • chevron_right2.4. Genre: theory and practice
    • 2.4.1. Defining genre
    • chevron_right2.4.2. Genre analysis
      • 2.4.2.1. Comparing two subgenres
      • 2.4.2.2. Corpus selection
      • 2.4.2.3. Linguistic analysis
      • 2.4.2.4. Studying the institutional context for MA theses
      • 2.4.2.5. Triangulation
    • chevron_right2.4.3. Genre in the classroom: teaching English for academic purposes
      • 2.4.3.1. New Rhetoric and the Sydney School
      • 2.4.3.2. Product and process approaches to teaching writing
  • chevron_right2.5. Teaching reference as a cohesive device for academic writing
    • 2.5.1. Cohesive reference in student writing
    • 2.5.2. Reference as a cohesive device in EAP textbooks
  • 2.6. Summary
• chevron_right3. A THEORETICAL BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY OF REFERENCE
  • chevron_right3.1. Definitions of reference
    • 3.1.1. Reference in theoretical linguistics
    • 3.1.2. Reference in discourse analysis
  • chevron_right3.2. Cohesive functions of referring items
    • chevron_right3.2.1. Personal reference
      • 3.2.1.1. Extended and text reference
    • chevron_right3.2.2. Demonstrative reference
      • 3.2.2.1. Demonstrative adverbs and conjunctives
    • 3.2.3. From comparative reference to determiners
  • 3.3. A taxonomy of cohesive reference
  • chevron_right3.4. Cohesion analysis
    • 3.4.1. Cohesive reference
    • 3.4.2. Cohesive ties
    • 3.4.3. Cohesive chains
    • 3.4.4. Methods for the analysis of cohesion in written texts
• chevron_right4. RESEARCH DESIGN
  • 4.1. Procedures of developing an analytical tool for referential cohesion analysis
  • 4.2. Research questions
  • 4.3. Stages of research and validation studies
  • 4.4. Data collection: building the corpora
  • chevron_right4.5. Research articles and MA theses: Comparing oranges to apples?
    • 4.5.1. Research articles
    • chevron_right4.5.2. Research articles and MA theses
      • 4.5.2.1. Communicative purpose and field
      • 4.5.2.2. Tenor
      • 4.5.2.3. Mode
      • 4.5.2.4. Structure
  • 4.6. Expected pedagogical implications
• chevron_right5. STAGE 1: HALLIDAY AND HASAN’S COHESION ANALYSIS: THE STARTING POINT
  • 5.1. Introduction
  • 5.2. Focus: testing the validity and reliability of Halliday and Hasan’s taxonomy
  • 5.3. The taxonomy: Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) Taxonomy of Cohesion
  • 5.4. The corpus: abstracts of RAs
  • 5.5. Methods of analysis
  • chevron_right5.6. Results and discussion
    • 5.6.1. Validity and reliability
    • 5.6.2. Cohesive characteristics of abstracts
    • chevron_right5.6.3. Analytical problems concerning the types of reference
      • 5.6.3.1. Titles
      • 5.6.3.2. The definite article
      • 5.6.3.3. Comparatives and conjunctions
      • 5.6.3.4. Cataphoric reference
      • 5.6.3.5. Other errors
      • 5.6.3.6. Reference by determiners versus lexical cohesion
    • 5.6.4. Problems in the analytical process
  • 5.7. Conclusions
• chevron_right6. STAGE 2: DEVELOPING A NOVEL APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF COHESIVE REFERENCE
  • 6.1. Introduction
  • 6.2. Focus: testing the first version of the analytical tool
  • 6.3. The taxonomy: Referential Cohesion Analysis
  • 6.4. The corpus: research articles
  • 6.5. Methods of analysis
  • chevron_right6.6. Results and discussion
    • 6.6.1. The reliability of RCA at Stage 2
    • 6.6.2. The distribution of referring items, cohesive ties and cohesive chains
    • 6.6.3. Patterns of chains within the subsections of RAs
    • 6.6.4. New and extended chains
    • 6.6.5. Chain complexity: merging and splitting
    • 6.6.6. The density of ties and the abstract
    • 6.6.7. Some unexpected inconsistencies in the references in the corpus
  • 6.7. Conclusions: practical and theoretical implications
• chevron_right7. STAGE 3: IMPROVING THE ANALYTICAL TOOL: NON-COHESIVE REFERENCE TAXONOMY FOR ACADEMIC WRITING
  • 7.1. Introduction
  • 7.2. Focus: Designing a complementary analysis to RCA
  • chevron_right7.3. A taxonomy of non-cohesive reference in academic writing
    • (A) SENTENCE-INTERNAL:
    • (B) SPECIFIED BY PRE- OR POST-MODIFIER:
    • (C) EXOPHORIC REFERENCE
    • (D) NON-REFERENTIAL:
    • (E) NON-INTEGRAL:
  • 7.4. The corpus: RAs and MA theses
  • 7.5. Methods of analysis
  • chevron_right7.6. Results and discussion
    • 7.6.1. Reliability at Stage 3
    • 7.6.2. Results of the cohesion analysis
    • 7.6.3. Types of cohesive ties
    • 7.6.4. Cohesive chains
    • 7.6.5. Errors in reference
  • 7.7. Conclusions and implications
• chevron_right8. STAGE 4: THE REPRESENTATION OF ERRORS IN THE COHESIVE REFERENCE ANALYSIS OF STUDENT ACADEMIC WRITING
  • 8.1. Introduction
  • 8.2. Focus: an exploration of error types in novice academic writing
  • chevron_right8.3. Taxonomy: reference errors in academic writing
    • 8.3.1. No referent in the textual context
    • 8.3.2. Vague reference
    • 8.3.3. Problematic tracking of reference
    • 8.3.4. Non-existent forms
  • 8.4. Methods of analysis: error analysis
  • chevron_right8.5. Results and Discussion
    • 8.5.1. Analytical problems and decisions
  • 8.6. Summary: Stages 2–4
• chevron_right9. STAGE 5: THE NEW ANALYTICAL TOOL: REFERENTIAL COHESION IN RESEARCH ARTICLES AND MA THESES
  • 9.1. Introduction
  • 9.2. Focus: Testing the new analytical tool
  • 9.3. The taxonomy: Referential Cohesion Analysis
  • 9.4. The Corpus: Research Papers
  • 9.5. Methods of analysis
  • chevron_right9.6. Results: Patterns of Referential Cohesion
    • 9.6.1. Reliability and validity results
    • 9.6.2. Cohesive ties and chains
    • 9.6.3. Long chains
    • 9.6.4. New and extended chains
    • 9.6.5. Central reference: the lexical content of the longest ties
    • chevron_right9.6.6. General observations relating to the structure and layout of the papers
      • 9.6.6.1. Reference to section title content
      • 9.6.6.2. Reference across section boundaries
      • 9.6.6.3. Precedence of general items
      • 9.6.6.4. Stating the obvious
      • 9.6.6.5. Vague reference to co-text
    • chevron_right9.6.7. The distribution of types of cohesive reference in MA theses and RAs
      • chevron_right9.6.7.1. Demonstrative and pronoun reference in MA theses and research articles
        • 9.6.7.1.1. Reference to authors
        • 9.6.7.1.2. Reference to research participants
        • 9.6.7.1.3. Non-human referents
      • 9.6.7.2. Comparative reference
      • 9.6.7.3. Non-cohesive categories
    • chevron_right9.6.8. Summary of error types and strategies to overcome them
      • 9.6.8.1. No referent in the textual context
      • 9.6.8.2. Vague reference
      • 9.6.8.3. Problematic tracking of reference
      • 9.6.8.4. Non-existent forms
      • 9.6.8.5. Results: errors in MA thesis sections
  • 9.7. Summary and conclusions
• chevron_right10. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
  • 10.1. Skills development
  • chevron_right10.2. Teaching and learning to use reference in academic writing
    • 10.2.1. Awareness raising of highest frequency errors
    • 10.2.2. Identification of self-contained units
    • 10.2.3. Improving the structure of students’ research papers
    • 10.2.4. Awareness of lexical relationships in academic texts
  • 10.3. A checklist of common learner errors
  • 10.4. Implications for teaching written discourse analysis
• chevron_right11. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
  • 11.1. Theoretical outcome: an analytical tool for the study of reference as a cohesive device
  • 11.2. Methodological outcome
  • 11.3. Empirical outcome: referential characteristics of research articles and MA theses
  • 11.4. Pedagogical outcome
  • 11.5. Limitations
  • 11.6. Suggestions for further research
• References
• chevron_rightAppendices
  • Appendix A – Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) coding scheme and an outline of the guidelines for the analysis of cohesion
  • Appendix B – Sample analysis for pedagogical purposes: non-specialized text • Teacher instructions for the introduction of RCA analysis (sample text and analysis on the next page):
  • Appendix C – Topical Structure Analysis: Sample analysis table
  • Appendix D – Corpus of academic abstracts
  • Appendix E – The role of numerals in reference
  • Appendix F – New and extended chains of reference
  • Appendix G – List of Research Articles in the corpus
  • Appendix H – Data collection sheet
  • Appendix I – Sample RCA

Kiadó: Akadémiai Kiadó

Online megjelenés éve: 2024

ISBN: 978 963 664 049 1

This monograph aims to contribute to the study of written discourse and to writing pedagogy within the field of teaching English for academic purposes. The study has both a theoretical and an empirical focus. Due to the lack of an analytical tool available for the reliable cohesive reference analysis of extended texts, to explore the patterns of referential cohesion in research papers, it has been necessary to develop a new analytical tool. In practice, the study advances the theory of cohesion analysis by refining the cohesive reference-related aspects of Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) taxonomy of cohesion to transform it into a reliable and valid analytical tool for cohesive reference analysis in academic discourse in particular. The analytical tool is then applied to present a corpus-based comparative analysis of research articles and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) writers’ MA theses. This is accomplished by a multi-stage investigation, using quantitative and qualitative approaches at every stage to ensure that quantitative data is supported by qualitative insights and vice versa. The present empirical study points out considerable differences regarding the cohesive reference patterns among research articles produced by expert writers and the subcorpora of high- and low-rated theses by novice EFL writers. A major outcome of the investigation is that it yields significant pedagogical implications for both teachers and learners of academic writing: provides clues for the design of tasks for the development of the relevant aspects of EFL discourse competence together with additional practical activities for a variety of applications of the theory-based analytical tool.

Hivatkozás: https://mersz.hu/jenei-referential-cohesion-in-academic-writing//