Research Practices in Cohesive Devices’ Studies: Benefiting from Chaos

Emad A. S. Abu-Ayyash

Abstract


This study has as its main goal exploring the possibility of benefiting from the chaotic status that permeates discourse analysis research done on cohesive devices since their inception by Halliday and Hasan (1976). These research studies have been categorised based on the foci of the research questions and the genres to which the analysed texts belong. The research practices of the reviewed papers have been analysed, compared and contrasted, and evaluated apropos the research design, methodology, literature review and findings. The analysis of the research practices found that the dominant feature of the reviewed studies is incompatibility. On a cautious note, while it is acknowledged that variance is imbued with research purposes, variance can be the product of certain flaws in the research design. This paper seeks to serve three purposes: 1) To critically survey the empirical studies conducted on cohesive devices, 2) to identify the problematic practices that led to the chaotic status, and 3) to propose a host of practices that can be followed in future research done on cohesive devices. Concomitant with this review a brief account of the cohesive devices model that was espoused by the majority of the studies addressed in this paper.

Keywords


cohesive devices; cohesion; research practices

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdul Rahman, Z.A. (2013). The use of cohesive devices in descriptive writing by Omani student-teachers. Sage Open, 3(4), 1-10. “doi: 10.1177/2158244013506715”

Abu Ayyash, E.A.S. (2013). The role of cohesive devices and the interplay of theme and rheme in consolidating the argument of Krauthammer’s free lunch egalitarianism. Arab World English Journal, 4(4), 235-251.

Aidinlou, N.A. & Pandian, A. (2011). The impact of local and global conjunctions on ESL reading comprehension: A systemic perspective. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(2), 387-395.

Alarcon, J.B. & Morales, K.N.S. (2011). Grammatical cohesion in students’ argumentative essay. Journal of English and Literature, 2(5), 114-127.

Ali, M.E.E. (2016). Using cohesive devices during the course of lectures “the lectures’ role”. International Research Journal of Social Sciences, 5(5), 33-36.

Bae, J. (2001). Cohesion and coherence in children’s written English: immersion and English-only classes. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 51-88.

Bahaziq, A. (2016). Cohesive devices in written discourse: a discourse analysis of a student’s essay writing. English Language Teaching, 9(7), 112-119. “doi: 10.5539/elt.v9n7p112”

Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words. London: Routledge.

Bell, J. (2005). Doing your research project. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.

Bloor, M. & Bloor, T. (2007). The practice of critical discourse analysis: an introduction. London: Hodder Education.

Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carrell, P. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 479-488. “doi: 10.2307/3586466”

Castro, C.D. (2004). Cohesion and the social construction of meaning in the essays of Filipino college students writing in L2 English. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 215-225.

Celce-Murcia, M. & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chen, J. (2008). An investigation of EFL students’ use of cohesive devices. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 215-225.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cox, B.E., Shanahan, T. & Sulzby, E. (1990). Good and poor readers’ use of cohesion in writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(1), 47-65. “doi: 10.2307/747987”

Crane, P. (1994). Texture in text: a discourse analysis of a news article using Halliday and Hasan’s model of cohesion. [online]. Retrieved from http://library.nakanishi.ac.jp/kiyou/gaidai(30)/08.pdf (accessed 20/12/2016).

Crossley, S.A. & McNamara, D.S. (2009). Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 18(1), pp. 119-135. “doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.002”.

Crossley, S.A., Salsbury, T. & McNamara, D.S. (2010). The role of lexical cohesive devices in triggering negotiations for meaning. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 55-80.

de Beaugrande, R. & Dressler, W.U. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman.

Ebrahimpourtaher, A. & Eissaei, S. (2013). Awareness of lexical cohesive devices in text and reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 4(2), 63-65.

Ghasemi, M. (2013). An investigation into the use of cohesive devices in second language writings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(9), 1615-1623. “doi: 10.4304/tpls.3.9.1615-1623”.

Gorard, S. (2001). Quantitative methods in educational research. London: Continuum.

Granger, S. & 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. “doi: 10.1111/j.1467-971X.1996.tb00089.x”.

Green, C. (2012). A computational investigation of cohesion and lexical network density in L2 writing. English Language Teaching, 5(8), 57-69. “doi: 10.5539/elt.v5n8p57”

Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, M.I.M. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar. 4th ed. London: Edward Arnold.

Hameed, H. (2008). Cohesion in texts: a discourse analysis of a news article in a magazine. Al-Faith Journal, 37(1), 81-114.

Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction: an introduction to written discourse analysis. London: Routledge.

Hung, D.M. & Thu, V.T.A. (2014). Vietnamese learners’ attention and use of cohesive devices in English essay writing at Dong Thap University. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 2(2), 1-14.

Ilyas, A.I. (2014). Cohesive devices in the short suras of the Glorious Quran. Arab World English Journal, special issue on translation (3), 135-146.

Jabeen, I., Mehmood, A. & Iqbal, M. (2013). Ellipsis, reference and substitution as cohesive devices: the bear by Anton Chekhov. Academic Research International, 4(6), 123-131.

Jafarpur, A. (1991). Cohesiveness as a basis for evaluating compositions. System, vol. 19(4), pp. 459-465. “doi: 10.1016/0346-251X(91)90026-L”

Jambak, V.T. & Gurning, B. (2014). Cohesive devices used in the headline news of the Jakarta post. Linguistica, 3(1), 58-71.

Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. California: Sage Publications.

Johnson, P. (1992). Cohesion and coherence in compositions in Malay and English. RELC Journal, 23(2), 1-17.

Kaur, S. (2015). A study of cohesion devices in John Keats’ “Ode to Autumn”. Modern Research Studies, vol. 2(1), pp. 134-143.

Khalil, A. (1989). A study of cohesion and coherence in Arab EFL college students’ writing. System, 17(3), 359-371. “doi: 10.1016/0346-251X(89)90008-0”.

Klebanov, B.B. & Shamir, E. (2007). Reader-based exploration of lexical cohesion. Lang Resources & Evaluation, 41(1), 27-44. “doi: 10.1007/s10579-007-9015-y”.

Kumar, R. (2011). Research methodology. London: Sage Publications.

Leo, K. (2012). Investigating cohesion and coherence discourse strategies of Chinese students with varied lengths of residence in Canada. TESL Canada Journal, 29(6), 157-180. “doi: 10.18806/tesl.v29i0.1115”.

Liu, M. & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 33(4), 623-636. “doi: 10.1016/j.system.2005.02.002”

Locke, T. (2004). Critical discourse analysis. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

McEnery, T. & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

McNamara, D. S. (2013). The epistemic stance between the author and reader: a driving force in the cohesion of text and writing. Discourse Studies, 15(5), 579-595.

McNamara, D.S., Crossley, S.A. & Roscoe, R. (2013). Natural language processing in an intelligent writing strategy tutoring system. Psychonomic Society, vol. 45(1), pp. 499-515. “doi: 10.3758/s13428-012-0258-1”.

Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mohamed, S.Y.S. & Mudawi, A.K. (2015). Investigating the use of cohesive devices in English as the second language writing skills. International Journal of Recent Scientific Research, 6(4), 3484-3487.

Moreno, A. (2003). The role of cohesive devices as textual constraints on relevance: A discourse-as-process view. International Journal of English Studies, 3(1), 111-165.

Morley, J. (2006). Lexical cohesion and rhetorical structure. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, vol. 11(3), pp. 265-282. “doi: 10.1075/ijcl.11.3.03mor”

Na, Y. (2011). Cohesive devices in CMC texts produced by American and Korean EFL writers. Linguistic Research, 28(3), 743-771.

Neuner, J.L. (1987). Cohesive ties and chains in good and poor freshman essays. Research in the Teaching of English, 21(1), 92-105.

Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Paramartha, I.W. Substitution as a cohesive device in the dialogue of the drama Pygmalion. Humanis, 11(1), 43-49.

Prados, M.D. (2012). Cohesion in American political rhetoric: The Gettysberg Address, I have a dream and Obama’s Inaugural Address. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, vol. 20(1), pp. 37-60. “doi: 10.5209/rev_EIUC.2012.v20.39994”.

Puranik, C.S., Wagner, R.K., Kim, Y. & Lopez, D. (2012). ‘Multivariate assessment of processes in elementary students’ written translation’, in M. Fayol, D. Alamargot & V.W. Berninger (eds). Translation of Thought to Written Text While Composing. New York: Psychology Press, 249-274.

Rostami, G., Gholami, H. & Piri, S. (2016). A contrastive study of cohesive devices used in pre-university and Headway textbooks. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(2), 136-147.

Scott, M. & Tribble, C. (2006). Textual patterns: key words and corpus analysis in language education. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Sharif, A.M. (2015). The analysis of cohesive devices in psychology research papers using discourse analysis technique. International Journal of English Language, Literature and Humanities, 3(6), 125-143.

Struthers, L., Lapadat, J. & MacMillan, P. (2013). Assessing cohesion in children’s writing: development of a checklist. Assessing Writing, 18(3), 187-201. “doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2013.05.001”

Thornbury, S. (2005). Beyond the sentence: Introducing discourse analysis. Oxford: Macmillan Education.

Wang, Y. & Guo, M. (2014). A short analysis of discourse coherence. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, vol. 5(2), pp. 460-465. “doi: 10.4304/jltr.5.2.460-465”

Widdowson, H. (2004). Text, context, pretext. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Xi, Y. (2010). Cohesion studies in the past 30 years: development, application and chaos. Language, Society and Culture, 31(1), 139-147.

Yang, W. & Sun, Y. (2012). The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguistics and Education, 23(1), 31-48. “doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2011.09.004”.

Yeibo, E. (2012). Aspects of textual cohesion in selected poems of J.P. Clark-Bekederemo. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, vol. 3(5), pp. 860-867.

Yin, Z. (2015). The use of cohesive devices in news language: overuse, underuse, or misuse?. RELC Journal, vol. 26(1), pp. 1-18.

Zhao, C. (2014). Lexical cohesion of Sino-British college students’ EAP writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(10), 2123-2128. “doi: 10.4304/tpls.4.10.2123-2128”.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0706.01

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Theory and Practice in Language Studies (TPLS, ISSN 1799-2591)
Copyright © 2015-2018 ACADEMY PUBLICATION — All Rights Reserved