Text Connection at Tertiary Level: Patterns and Functions

22 Text Connection at Tertiary Level: Patterns and Functions Maggie Charles Oxford University Language Centre maggie.charles@lang.ox.ac.uk Abstract This paper deals with the use of adverbial connectors (e.g. thus, however) in nativespeaker undergraduate writing. Drawing on data from the British Academic Written Corpus (BAWE), it examines the frequency and grammatical patterns of 17 adverbials in four disciplines: Business Studies, Politics, Chemistry and Computer Science. It shows that connectors vary considerably in frequency according to discipline and genre. More detailed investigation of the adverbial thus reveals its characteristic patterns and functions. The paper argues that the teaching of text connection needs to focus both on the patterns of individual adverbials and on the functions they perform in context. Key words: adverbial connection, academic writing, cohesion, genre, disciplinary difference 1. Introduction Ever since Halliday and Hasan’s ground-breaking work on cohesion (1976), the teaching of connective devices has been considered an important pedagogical issue. One of the grammatical resources for creating cohesion is the use of adverbial connectors (e.g. thus, however), which signal the logical relations present in the text. The use of such cohesive ties is characteristic of academic writing, but can pose considerable problems for writers who are non-native speakers of English (NNS). This paper first discusses the literature on the use of adverbial connection by NNS students and then moves on to consider data from the British Academic Written Corpus (BAWE) on the frequency and patterns of occurrence of selected adverbial connectors. 2. Findings from the literature on adverbial connection Although there is a substantial literature on adverbial connection, studies are not necessarily directly comparable and thus the findings are not always consistent. There are a number of reasons for this. First, individual studies use different terminology and examine somewhat different sets of items in their investigations of what may broadly be called ‘adverbial connection’. For example, Halliday (1974) uses the term ‘conjunctive adjunct’, while Biber et al. (1999) refer to ‘linking adverbials’. Further, some studies examine only connection between sentences (e.g. Gardezi & Nesi 2009), while others include intra-sentential links (e.g. Shaw 2009). Researchers also divide the adverbials into different semantic groups, the make-up of which is not necessarily identical across studies. Thus Biber et al. (1999) assign adverbials to six semantic categories (enumeration and addition; summation; apposition; result/inference; transition; contrast/concession), while Halliday (1974) employs only four (additive; adversative; causal; temporal). Researchers also differ both in the individual adverbials they examine and in the methodology they use, with some investigating pre-determined lists (e.g. Milton & Tsang 1993), while others look at all adverbials in the studied texts (e.g. Charles 2010). Finally, in carrying out comparisons of adverbial connection, studies investigate different types of writer (e.g. undergraduates, postgraduates, 23 professionals), different genres (e.g. essays, research articles) and different disciplines, with some studies providing data on several disciplines, while others focus on a single discipline. As a result of this lack of comparability, it is hard for the teacher to gain any clear guidance from the research or to judge which findings are most relevant to their own situation. Here I will discuss five findings which may be of particular interest to teachers and will indicate some conclusions that can be drawn for pedagogy. Several researchers have compared student with professional writing (Bolton et al. 2002; Milton and Tsang 1993; Shaw 2009; Tribble 1989) and found that students tend to use more adverbial connectors than professional writers. However, I would argue that this tendency should not necessarily be regarded as an ‘overuse’ which requires pedagogical attention. Rather, it may be explained by the fact that the genres and purposes are different. Thus the student texts were primarily essays written for assessment, while the professional writing varied in genre, including research articles, which provide new information for experts (Shaw 2009; Tribble 1989), textbooks, written by experts for students (Milton & Tsang 1993) and other professional (Bolton et al. 2002). It is to be expected that students writing for assessment would tend to mark their logical connections clearly in order to display their knowledge and thinking processes, upon which the quality of their work will be judged. By contrast, for research article writers, too great a display of explicit knowledge might well be judged inappropriate for an audience of fellow experts. Shaw (2009) also argues that the impression of ‘overuse’ may derive from the fact that students tend to make simpler points using shorter propositions, which leads to a greater density of connectors overall. Thus it does not necessarily seem valid always to consider students’ higher use of these adverbials as a weakness which needs correction. Indeed, it may be positively beneficial for students to use connectors to facilitate their logical reasoning and to make the structure of the text clear to the assessor. Considerable differences are also found between NNS and native-speaker (NS) student writing, firstly in the type of connector employed: NNS students use more enumeration, addition and apposition connectors and fewer contrast and result connectors than their NS counterparts (Altenberg & Tapper 1998; Granger & PetchTyson 1996; Tankό 2004). Several reasons have been put forward to account for these phenomena. First, the cognitive load on NNS is higher, so they may establish simpler logical relations than NS. Differences in cultural norms may also mean that logical relations are not signalled explicitly (cf. Mauranen 1993) and finally NNS may lack knowledge of and skill in using other forms of connection or in managing information structure. The consequences of these differences are potentially much more harmful for NNS because their texts may seem cohesive, without being coherent. Logical relations may not be marked where expected, which may disorientate or mislead the reader and, perhaps most importantly, may lead to the criticism that the text lacks argumentation. The following example from a postgraduate NNS writer shows how, despite considerable adverbial use, the extract seems list-like and lacking in argument. Meanwhile Ballard (1990 compares the similarities and differences of two ethnic groups, the Jullunduris and the Mirpuris from India in the UK including their backgrounds, process of adaptation to the UK, and the reasons that cause differences regarding adaptation. Firstly, Jullunduris are from relatively well-off backgrounds compared to Mirpuris. Moreover, since their arrival in the UK, Jullunduris have adapted better than Mirpuris. 24 For example they have a higher educational achievements of children, children’s ability to speak English and incomes. Indeed in this case, the writer may have failed to construct an important cause/effect relation: the Jullunduris may have adapted better precisely because they are relatively well-off and have therefore had access to better educational and other resources. In comparison with their NS counterparts, NNS students have also been shown to privilege connectors that are typical of conversational register (Altenberg & Tapper 1998; Bolton et al. 2002; Granger & Petch-Tyson 1996). This may be because NNS lack awareness of register differences, especially between spoken conversation and written academic English, the result, perhaps, of a more general lack of exposure to a range of different authentic contexts. However, as teachers, we should also recognise that overuse of conversational connectors could be due to the practice of teaching linking adverbials in lists, without making distinctions between spoken and written usage. This would imply, then, that greater attention should be paid to context and function when teaching and practising these items. Students should not be left with the impression that connectors which belong to the same semantic group are freely interchangeable. There are two aspects of the difference between NNS and NS connector use that may not merit so much concern. First NNS students tend to use a more restricted set of connectors than NS students (Bolton et al. 2002). They may have ‘pet’ connectors (Tankό 2004) or what Hasselgren (1994) calls ‘lexical teddy bears’, items which they tend to overuse because they feel comfortable and secure in applying them. Of course, where students lack knowledge of an adequate range of connectors, this should be addressed through teaching. At the same time, however, it is clear that some connectors are more frequent than others (see e.g. Biber et al. (1999: 887). Thus it would not be appropriate to urge variety on NNS without making distinctions between individual connectors. As I shall argue later, it is necessary to be aware of the frequency patterns of individual adverbs and to take them into account in teaching. Finally, NNS have been found to make greater use of sentence initial position for the adverb and this may make the text seem repetitive and less expert (Field & Yip 1992; Granger & Petch-Tyson 1996). However, as Biber et al. (1999: 891) report, sentence initial position is the most frequent in academic writing, primarily because it makes the logical connection easy for the reader to follow. Of course, NNS students may use this position because it is easier to handle grammatically, but this does not mean that they should be taught to prefer the sentence medial position. As I have argued elsewhere (Charles 2010), it is likely that each individual connector is associated with its own patterns of use, including sentence position, and that this varies also according to discipline. However, as yet there is a lack of sufficient detailed evidence to give more than very general guidance on the typical positions of individual connectors. For the moment at least, then, it seems reasonable to accept a relatively high level of sentence initial position. To sum up, findings from the literature suggest that NNS may over-rely on adverbial connection and may construct simpler logical relations. They may also lack detailed knowledge of the use of individual connectors, in particular with regard to adverbial position and register. In the following sections, I will build on these findings by presenting a study of linking adverbial use in a corpus of student writing. 3. Linking adverbials in undergraduate writing 3.1 Corpora and Data 25 The British Academic Written Corpus (BAWE) consists of over 2,700 assignments which were written for assessment and received good grades. The data were collected from three universities in 35 disciplines at undergraduate and Master’s level. For the purposes of the present study, four subcorpora were compiled, consisting of undergraduate native-speaker texts only, in four disciplines: Business Studies, Politics, Computer Science and Chemistry. These disciplines were chosen to provide examples of both social/natural science, and applied/theoretical work. The sizes of the subcorpora are as follows: Business Studies: 87,000 words/40 files; Politics: 174,000 words/68 files; Computer Science: 94,000 words/45 files; Chemistry: 100,000 words/68 files. It is important to note that the most prevalent genres differ substantially between the four subcorpora. In Politics, the essay is preferred, while in Business Studies, three genres predominate: essay, case study and critique (for example a business environment analysis or business/organisation evaluation). Two different genres are represented in the natural science subcorpora: in Computer Science, the design specification and in Chemistry, the methodology recount, a category which includes genres such as the experimental or lab report. Following the work of Biber et al. (1999: 886), seventeen of the most frequent adverbials in academic prose were investigated, covering four semantic groups: 1. Result/Inference: then, therefore, thus, hence; 2. Contrast/Concession: however, rather, yet, nevertheless, on the other hand; 3. Apposition/Exemplification: for example, e.g., for instance, i.e.; 4. Enumeration/Addition: in addition, furthermore, finally, first. Concordances were retrieved on each adverbial and were examined using WordSmith Tools (Scott 2005). 3.2 Overall results and discussion When we compare the overall frequencies of the seventeen adverbials with those found by Biber et al. (1999: 886), we find higher use in the undergraduate corpora, thus confirming the findings of earlier studies discussed above. This suggests that professional writing may not be the most appropriate model for student writers to follow. As noted above, the genres and purposes differ, with the result that good student writing may simply require more, and more overt connection. However it is perhaps more interesting to note the substantial differences between individual disciplines in the subcorpora. The highest frequency per 100,000 words occurs in Politics (702), followed by Business Studies (646), Chemistry (589) and Computer Science (535). These findings support those of Hyland and Tse (2004), who found higher frequencies of transition markers in soft as opposed to hard sciences. The present study highlights the fact that discipline has a key effect on the frequency of connection used, which underlines the necessity of taking this factor into account in teaching. Examining the frequency of the four semantic groups across the four disciplines reveals further disciplinary differences. Table 1 shows the frequency of individual adverbial groups per 100,000 words. Three findings are of particular note and can be explained by differences in the predominant genres found in the subcorpora. The first and most striking finding is the very high frequency of result adverbials in the Chemistry subcorpus. The methodology recount genre prevalent in this discipline demands that students state and discuss their results. Thus it is the requirements of the genre that are most likely to account for this high frequency figure. 26 The gradient of this graph was found to be 1 proving that n=1 and therefore the absorbing species is the simplest iron thiocyanate complex ion: FeSCN 2+. (6212c Chemistry) Similarly, the Politics subcorpus has the highest frequency of contrast adverbials, which can be explained by the fact that making contrasts is a fundamental part of constructing the argumentation that is characteristic of the essay genre. In the 1950s, 1 in 10 people were members of a political party; that has now dropped to 1 in 50. However, this trend does not necessarily indicate a decline in participation, merely a change in the methods used. (0272b Politics) Finally, the Business Studies subcorpus shows the highest use of the apposition/exemplification group, most probably due to the prevalence of case studies, which demand constant reference back to the case materials and thus the inclusion of frequent examples. Target markets need to analysed and compromises have to be made. For example, the SUSI and SUKA markets have the potential to increase as both target markets, others and singles respectively, increase. (0165b Business Studies) Table 1: Frequency of adverbial groups by discipline (per 100,000 words) contrast 320 result 280 appos/exemp add/enum Frequency 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 Business Chemistry Computer Sci Politics Discipline These results suggest that genre is very important in determining which adverbial groups are used and how frequently. Thus it is an oversimplification to view student use of connectors solely in terms of ‘overuse’ or ‘underuse’. It is more important be aware of and differentiate between the types of adverbials required for writing individual genres. For teachers, this implies that specific groups of adverbials may need increased emphasis when certain genres are being taught. 27 3.3 Adverbials of result/inference: results and discussion I will now focus in detail on the adverbials of result, distinguishing three major patterns of use and linking these to the rhetorical functions they perform in the subcorpora of Politics and Chemistry. Table 2 shows the frequency figures per 100,000 words for individual adverbials in the result/inference group. As can be seen, these differ in frequency, with a tendency for therefore and thus to be higher than hence and then. The particularly high frequency of then in the Computer Science subcorpus is due to its occurrence as part of the if… then pattern, as illustrated below: If the removed object exists in both X and C then the set complement is an empty set… (6160b Computer Science) Table 2 Frequency of Result Adverbials (per 100,000 words) Frequency 150 125 Bus Chem 100 Comp Pol 75 50 25 0 therefore thus hence then Result Adverbials These data provide further evidence to support the claim that even within a single semantic group, each individual adverbial is associated with its own frequency and patterns of use. This implies that, as suggested earlier, it is not helpful for teachers to present adverbials in lists as though they were interchangeable; teaching materials need to take account of differences in frequency, giving extra emphasis to the most used connectors. Indeed, given that NS themselves seem to show preferences for certain connectors over others, the fact that NNS also do so may not be a cause for undue concern, although clearly this will depend upon the connector itself. 3.4 Patterns and functions of the adverbial ‘thus’ In order to carry out the detailed examination necessary to investigate patterns and functions, I now further narrow the focus of the study to a single adverbial: thus. In these subcorpora, this adverbial is associated predominantly with three patterns of use, as exemplified below: Sentence initial 28 The geometry was optimised at the same level of theory and the same basis set as the energy calculation. Thus since the level of theory is high, it is likely that the errors here are dependant upon the basis set. (0188f Chemistry) …and thus The resources available to pressure groups obviously limit or enlarge the extent to which they can publicise their cause and run events and thus has a direct effect on their success. (0276d Politics) …thus Vb–ing Because most computers were expensive and difficult to use in the 80s, the key success factor in the industry at that time was the ability to produce computers that were easy to use, thus attracting first time users who were willing to pay for computers. (0206c Business Studies) Taken together, these three patterns account for the majority of all instances of thus in all the subcorpora: 89% of all the occurrences in Business Studies, 73% in Chemistry, 82% in Politics and 86% in Computer Science. Hence it is particularly important to highlight these three patterns in teaching this adverbial. More generally, teaching materials and procedures are needed which increase awareness of the differences in patterns between individual adverbials and which teach each adverbial in its characteristic patterns of use. Finally, then, I turn to some of the functions which are associated with the adverbial thus in two of the subcorpora. First, in Chemistry it is noticeable that 50% of the instances of sentence initial thus comment on a formula, figure or numerical value. Of course, such numerical elements are frequent in this discipline, but two rather different functions can be distinguished, as illustrated below. In the first, the student uses thus to display their understanding of an accepted formula: Stress is the relationship between an applied force and the orthogonal planar area over which it acts. FORMULA Thus with increasing shear rate, the stress will increase. (6123i Chemistry) This use may be considered characteristic of the student’s role as one who is learning the discipline and thus needs to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding for assessment purposes. It therefore seems unlikely that such a use would occur with a high frequency in expert writing. This provides a good illustration of why higher frequencies of linking adverbials are often found in student as compared to professional texts and simultaneously indicates why this may not be a cause for concern, but rather a welcome attribute of competent and knowledgeable student writing. The second use is one in which the student comments on their own findings. This is a function that is likely to be characteristic of expert as well as student writing, since commenting on results is fundamental to the construction of knowledge in experimental disciplines: However in terms of bond angles it is the same if not slightly further away from experiment than HF/6-31+G(d,p) level, but gives a hugely better estimate of R: 0.6% within experiment, instead of 3.2% at the HF/6- 29 31+G(d,p) level. Thus the improvement is not vast compared to the HF method previously employed, but it is noticeable. (0188f Chemistry) In teaching text connection to chemistry undergraduates, then, it would first be necessary to emphasise the key importance of result adverbials. Within this semantic group, it would be particularly useful to highlight the adverbial thus, linking the choice of connector specifically to its sentence initial pattern and the two different comment functions it performs. This would help students to understand the necessity both for commenting on their own results and for providing explanations of even well-known formulae, while at the same time showing them how successful NS students accomplish this. When we examine the Politics subcorpus, different patterns and functions are evident. Roughly forty percent of all instances of thus occur in the context of a citation. However, two patterns can be distinguished, which perform different functions with regard to the citation. First, fifty percent of the thus Vb-ing pattern are used to summarise the cited writer’s ideas. As with the earlier function noted in Chemistry, this is likely to be characteristic of student writing and would achieve the purpose of demonstrating to the assessor that the student had fully understood the cited work: Christopher Hill terms this tendency the 'cover function' whereby responsibility for difficult decisions can be shifted to the regional level thus avoiding responsibility or justifying unpopular policies. (0034a Politics) In contrast to this function, fifty percent of sentence initial thus introduce the student’s comment on the citation. Here the cited writer’s ideas are reformulated in a way that makes it possible for the student to use them in the development of their own argument. This would seem to be a more powerful function and one which may well also be typical of expert writers: Esping-Anderson's social stratification measure is concerned solely with the manner in which social rights structure class hierarchies. Thus from a feminist perspective he is doubly-guilty: not only does he ignore how gender relations have influenced the substance of the welfare state, he pays scant regard to how the substance of the welfare states affects gender relations. (0075l Politics) In teaching undergraduates in the discipline of Politics, then, attention should be drawn to the high incidence of both contrast and result adverbials and their role in the construction of argument. Since NNS students often find the use of citations to be difficult, it would be particularly helpful to focus on the relevant patterns of thus and their functions in both summarising and commenting on the cited material. 4. Conclusion In reviewing the literature we distinguished certain aspects of NNS adverbial connection that are likely to need pedagogical attention and others that are less problematic. I then used the study of linking adverbials in the BAWE corpus to illustrate some aspects of these findings. Thus I argued that it is reasonable for students to use more connectors than professional writers, since their genres and purposes are quite different. This is shown by the functions of thus in the Chemistry and Politics subcorpora. Examination of the relative frequencies of adverbials of result also 30 confirms the finding that some adverbials are more frequent than others, leading to the conclusion that the NNS preference for certain ‘pet’ connectors may sometimes be acceptable, depending on the connector involved. I also argued that each adverbial is associated with its own patterns of use and functions and, although limited in scope, this study has given an indication of some of the significant differences that may exist, even between connectors in the same semantic group. In teaching text connection, I suggest that it is essential to present adverbials in their most frequent patterns and to show how they perform the functions that are characteristic of a given discipline and genre. This approach not only allows students to see and understand the extended context of the adverbial, but also provides a rationale for the choice of both the individual connector itself and the most appropriate grammatical pattern. Acknowledgement The data in this study come from the British Academic Written English (BAWE) corpus, which was developed at the Universities of Warwick, Reading and Oxford Brookes under the directorship of Hilary Nesi and Sheena Gardner (formerly of the Centre for Applied Linguistics [previously called CELTE], Warwick), Paul Thompson (formerly of Department of Applied Linguistics, Reading) and Paul Wickens (Westminster Institute of Education, Oxford Brookes), with funding from the ESRC (RES-000-23-0800). (http://www.coventry.ac.uk/bawe) References Biber D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad & E. Finegan (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education. Bolton K., G. Nelson & J. Hung (2002). “A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing. Research from the International Corpus of English in Hong Kong (ICEHK)”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7: 165-182. Charles M. (2010). “Corpus evidence for teaching adverbial connectors of contrast: however, yet, rather, instead and in contrast”. In N. Kubler (ed), Corpora, Language Teaching and Resources: From Theory to Practice. Bern: Peter Lang. Field Y. & L. M. O. Yip (1992). “A comparison of internal conjunctive cohesion in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English”. RELC Journal 23: 15-28. Gardezi A. & H. Nesi (2009). “Variation in the writing of economics students in Britain and Pakistan: the case of conjunctive ties”. In M. Charles, D. Pecorari & S. Hunston (eds), Academic Writing: At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse. London: Continuum, 236-250. Granger S. & S. Tyson (1996). ”Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English”. World Englishes 15: 17-27. Halliday M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold. Halliday M. A. K. & R. Hasan (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Hasselgren A. (1994). “Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: a study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 4: 237-260. Hyland K. & P. Tse (2004). “Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal”. Applied Linguistics 25: 156-177. Mauranen A. (1993). “Contrastive ESP rhetoric: metatext in Finnish-English economics texts”. English for Specific Purposes 12: 3-22. 31 Milton J. & E. S. Tsang (1993). “A corpus-based study of logical connectors in EFL students' writing: directions for future research”. In R. Pemberton & E. S. Tsang (eds), Studies in Lexis. Hong Kong: HKUST Language Centre, 215-246. Scott M. (2005). WordSmith Tools (Version 4). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shaw P. (2009). “Linking adverbials in student and professional writing in literary studies: what makes writing mature”. In M. Charles, D. Pecorari & S. Hunston (eds), Academic Writing: At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse. London: Continuum, 215235. Tankό G. (2004). “The use of adverbial connectors in Hungarian university students' argumentative essays”. In J. M. Sinclair (ed), How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 157-181. Tribble C. (1989). “The use of text structuring vocabulary in native and non-native speaker writing”. MUESLI News June 1989: 17-20.