A comparison of cohesive features in IELTS writing of Chinese candidates and IELTS examiners

来源 :校园英语 | 被引量 : 0次 | 上传用户:xuwenhaiyy
下载到本地 , 更方便阅读
声明 : 本文档内容版权归属内容提供方 , 如果您对本文有版权争议 , 可与客服联系进行内容授权或下架
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.
其他文献
解放思想从来就不是一种状态,而是一个不断渐进的过程.比如对低渗透的认识.原来,长庆对低渗透的认识可以说全是负面的.但随着认识的深入,长庆人也认识到了低渗透的另一面:生
Abstract: In the late 1990s, the Chinese education sector emerged a surge of "the college merger" boom, which caused many problems also attracted the attention of social all circles. Mergence of unive
期刊
摘 要:口语教学是预科英语教学的重点,也是教师教学的难点。本文分析了预科英语口语教学的重要性,探讨了预科英语口语教学存在的困难及提出解决问题的一些对策。  关键词:预科英语;口语教学;困难与对策  语言是交流的工具,而口语交流是最重要的最普遍的交流方式,因此英语口语的重要性不言而喻。加强英语口语的教学,已受到大家的重视。这不仅仅是目前素质教育的一项要求,而且也是外语教学改革的趋势。但是由于各种原因
摘 要:在当代,人文主义教育思想对大学英语教学具着重要的指导意义。人文主义语言教学观是人文主义教育思想的重要表现形式,有利于促进课堂教学创新,实现学生的个性发展与全面发展。基于此,本文首先简要概述了人文主义语言教学观的基本内容,然后全面剖析了人文主义语言教学观的应用路径。  关键词:人文主义语言教学观;大学英语;教学  近些年来,伴随着教育教学改革的深入与发展,人文主义教育思想获得了广泛地应用。从
Abstract: A number of people have frequently made the point that the total time and individual engage in all walks of life,but at last they harvested nothing.Why?A man who wants to succeed in one area
2010年甘肃省进入高中新课程改革,统一使用NSEFC,该套教材扩大听力所占篇幅的比例,体现了听力在高中英语学习中的重要地位,使外语教学向更科学、更全面的方向发展。但此次调
本文根据《高职高专教育英语课程教学基本要求》总的指导思想,从教学目标、教学方法、教学内容三个方面来探讨高职英语教学改革。 Based on the general guiding principle
目前,已有四本高中历史教科书通过教材审定委员会审定,四个版本各有所长。人民版教科书是教育部历史课程标准研制组编写的,主编朱汉国教授为历史课程标准组组长、教育部评价
摘 要:语言学习的过程是学习者的文化知识逐渐累积和交际能力逐渐发展的过程。因此,英语教师要根据学生的年龄特点和认识能力,不断深入挖掘教材中的文化因素,科学地将文化教学融于语言教学中,满足学生了解英语英语文化的需求,扩大学生的视野,感受强烈的异域文化熏陶,增强其语言文化素养,切实培养学生的跨文化意识和提高学生的跨文化交际能力。  关键词:文化教学;交际;策略  语言学习要在一定的文化语境中进行,这不
词汇是语言的重要组成部分,通常词与词联合起来才能发挥出它们的作用。词与词的经常性联合,就形成了词语的搭配。菲斯(Firth)认为“理解一个词要看它的结伴关系(you shall know a word by the company it keeps)”,某些词经常和某些词共现,它们这种“mutual expectancy of words”形成了搭配关系。在英汉两种语言中,词汇的搭配既有相似之处,