Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1
Adverbial Connectors in Learner Texts
in part by the use of adverbial connectors, is and Hasan identified five cohesive relations
one way to create a more unified text. that can signal relationships between texts.
The present study, then, represents Three, reference, ellipsis, and substitution,
an initial step toward the expansion of make use of syntactic operations and closed-
corpus-based research on the use of class words, creating cohesion through the
conjunctive adverbials in learner writing. fact that their presence in a sentence
These connectors were extracted from a presupposes the existence of an element in
corpus of timed learner writing. The number another sentence; the use of a pronoun, for
of T-units per total number of words in each example, presupposes the existence of its
text was also calculated in order to provide referent elsewhere in the text.1 The fourth
objective measures of complexity and type of cohesive relation is conjunction,
writing development. In addition, the texts which makes use of elements such as
were coded using an analytic scale rating coordinating and subordinating con-
vocabulary, content, language use, junctions, as well as conjunctive adverbials
organization, and mechanics. This method to make explicit connections between
had the advantage of allowing rater propositions. Conjunction has a larger
perceptions of relevant aspects of the text, lexical element than the preceding three, in
such as organization and content scores, to that it makes use of a wider set of lexical
be isolated while also providing an items, but is also applied with a degree of
indication of the overall text quality through systematicity that indicates the incorporation
the total score for all traits. of grammatical aspects as well. The fifth
The combination of textual data from type of cohesive relation is lexical cohesion,
a large sample of learner writing with the repetition of lexical items or use of
information on how those texts are synonymous items throughout various
perceived offers the opportunity to sections of a text.
determine whether the use of these overt A division can be made between
cohesive devices does contribute to the Halliday and Hasans (1976) first three
perceived quality of a text. If the use of categories of cohesive relation and the
adverbial connectors correlates with second two, as the first three deal with
measures of text quality, this suggests that closed-class word categories such as
they may indeed help to increase the quality personal and demonstrative pronouns. The
of texts. If no correlation is found, then this conjunctive cohesive devices, while still a
validates intuitions that such words do not closed set, represent a much wider variety of
benefit student writing (e.g., Crewe, 1990; single and multiword expressions, and
Hinkel, 2004) and lends support to claims by lexical cohesion can be created by many
these writing researchers that other methods types of words or phrases. In another sense,
of increasing cohesion in writing should be the conjunctive cohesive relation stands
emphasized in writing pedagogy. apart from the other four, in that it does not
connect to a second element elsewhere in
Review of Literature the text but rather makes explicit a
Cohesion relationship between two propositions. Seen
The concept of text cohesion was from these two perspectives, conjunctive
first developed in Halliday and Hasans adverbials stand apart from the others, in
(1976) seminal work on the topic. terms of their status as a relatively large set
Examining what quality makes a series of of fixed elements and their function within a
sentences cohere into a single text, Halliday text.
3 MSU Working Papers in SLS 2009 Vol. 1, No. 1
Adverbial Connectors in Learner Texts
difference represents a total difference of 14 adverbial use in the NNS sample differed
tokens per 10,000 words. Narita et al. also from that in the NS sample only when
found, similarly to Granger and Tyson, that measured per word and not per sentence,
some connectors were used more by the then it is not clear that the difference truly
learners while others were used less often. A lies in the two groups use of adverbials.
comparison of Narita et al.s results with Rather, the NNSs wrote shorter sentences
those obtained from analyses of the French, which they connected in ways similar to NS
Swedish, and Chinese subcorpora revealed writers; as their writing fluency increases, it
limited similarities; for example, moreover might catch up to their conjunctive adverbial
was overused by all four groups, but was the use.
only connector which appeared on all four Further bearing on the question of
lists. what constitutes a meaningful finding of
Chen (2006) compared the adverbial overuse of adverbial connectors, Bolton,
use in a corpus of 23 final papers written by Nelson, and Hungs (2002) study compared
Taiwanese MA TESOL students to that in the use of connectors in the Hong Kong and
research articles in TESOL related journals. Great Britain subsets of the International
Based on the argument that conjunctive Corpus of English (ICE) to a sample of
adverbials connect sentences rather than published academic writing. The results of
words, Chen calculated the number of the analysis demonstrated a tendency for
conjunctive adverbials both per word and both groups of students, NNSs and NSs, to
per sentence and found that learners used overuse connectors when compared to
slightly more connectors than in the NS published academic writing. In light of such
sample when calculated as a percentage of results, the question of what represents
total words, but not when calculated as a significant overuse becomes a central one to
percentage of total sentences. Chen interpreting the findings of corpus-based
hypothesized that this result is due to the research.
fact that the NS authors more complex
sentences require the additional structure Research Questions
provided by adverbial connectors. The present study addressed the
Chens (2006) NNS sample of 23 question of learner use of conjunctive
texts was made up of varying numbers of adverbials using an analysis that has the
five different text genres, and the potential to provide results more directly
comparison corpus consisted of 10 relevant to writing pedagogy. Instead of
published journal articles. Chen comparing NNS patterns of adverbial use to
acknowledged the small and heterogeneous those found in an NS corpus, a correlation
sample weakened her results, but the study analysis was performed between NNSs
also illustrated a deeper question of what usage of conjunctive adverbials and the
implications a finding of overuse might scores given to the texts by two raters.
have for informing writing pedagogy and Rather than describing a pattern of usage in
language development. Chen pointed out terms of a comparison corpus, the results of
that per 10,000 words, the learners used only this analysis will provide insight into the
6 more conjunctive adverbials than the NS effect that the use of these connectives has
sample, though particular adverbials on readers perceptions of learners writing.
demonstrated more dramatic differences.
One question, then, is what should be
considered a meaningful difference. Also, if
5 MSU Working Papers in SLS 2009 Vol. 1, No. 1
Adverbial Connectors in Learner Texts
Conclusion
An analysis of connective adverbials
used in NNS English learners writing
revealed little correlation between the use of
these cohesive devices and raters
perceptions of the texts. Additionally, the
use of connective adverbials did not
correlate with measures of writing
development. This finding supports
arguments in the pedagogical literature that
these connective adverbials do not
contribute to the overall quality of a text
(e.g., Hinkel 2004). Future research will
seek to develop a more detailed picture of
how connective adverbials are deployed in
texts.
10 MSU Working Papers in SLS 2009 Vol. 1, No. 1
Adverbial Connectors in Learner Texts
APPENDIX A
CONNECTORS INCLUDED IN THE ANALYSIS
% of All
Connector Raw Frequency Freq./1000 Words Connectors
however 78 25.27 0.17
also 61 19.76 0.13
first of all 28 9.07 0.06
for example 28 9.07 0.06
therefore 27 8.75 0.06
finally 24 7.77 0.05
in addition 22 7.13 0.05
secondly 20 6.48 0.04
in conclusion 16 5.18 0.03
actually 13 4.21 0.03
first 11 3.56 0.02
second 10 3.24 0.02
then (temp) 10 3.24 0.02
In my opinion 10 3.24 0.02
especially 10 3.24 0.02
as a result 8 2.59 0.02
thirdly 8 2.59 0.02
first (temp) 6 1.94 0.01
furthermore 6 1.94 0.01
on the other hand 6 1.94 0.01
third 6 1.94 0.01
anyway 5 1.62 0.01
lastly 5 1.62 0.01
moreover 5 1.62 0.01
thus 5 1.62 0.01
at first (meaning first) 4 1.30 0.01
in fact 4 1.30 0.01
first of all (temporal) 3 0.97 0.01
then 3 0.97 0.01
at the same time 2 0.65 0.00
besides 2 0.65 0.00
firstly 2 0.65 0.00
last (temporal) 2 0.65 0.00
next 2 0.65 0.00
according to this 1 0.32 0.00
fourth 1 0.32 0.00
at the same time (temporal) 1 0.32 0.00
consequently 1 0.32 0.00
like (for example) 1 0.32 0.00
for instance 1 0.32 0.00
for that reason 1 0.32 0.00
in the meantime 1 0.32 0.00
12 MSU Working Papers in SLS 2009 Vol. 1, No.
Adverbial Connectors in Learner Text
Endnotes
1
The use of 1st and 2nd person
pronouns does not presuppose the existence
of a referent within the text, but rather a
referent in the world. Thus, 1st and 2nd
person pronouns are regularly excluded
from counts of cohesive elements within
texts.
2
A reviewer points out that many
adverbials are multiword constructions,
making the calculation of connectors per
word problematic. Although the present
study uses this statistic as per previous
studies (e.g., Chen, 2006), the question does
seem to require a more elegant solution.