COHERENCE: IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING WRITING
Vol. 2, Issue 1, pp. 17-30 Full text
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33919/esnbu.16.1.2 ☍
Author: Emilija Sarzhoska-Georgievska
Affiliation: Ss. Cyril & Methodius University, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
The paper presents the results of a study consisting of three text-based analyses of groups of student argumentative essays written on the same topic. The aim was to identify text-based features of coherence in L1 and L2. The analyses were carried out on essays written by first and third year undergraduates at the Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Philology "Blazhe Koneski" at the Ss. "Cyril and Methodius" University in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia who wrote in their first language Macedonian, L1, and in English as a foreign language, L2. The goal was to recognise the importance of discourse organisation in academic writing in L1, and to examine factors which may affect second language learners' competence in the organisation of written discourse in English as a foreign language, L2. The paper points out the differences in the rhetorical models in Macedonian and English written discourse and how these differences may have an impact on writing assessment and the teaching of writing at university level.
Keywords: Coherence, organizational patterns, topical structure analysis, rhetorical models, teaching writing
Received: 18 April 2016;
Reviewed: 25 May 2016;
Accepted: 30 May 2016;
Published: 20 August 2016
Sarzhoska-Georgievska, Emilija. (2016). Coherence: Implications for teaching writing. English Studies at NBU, 2(1), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.33919/esnbu.16.1.2 ☍
Copyright © 2016 Emilija Sarzhoska-Georgievska
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. If you want to use the work commercially, you must first get the author's permission.
Bamberg, B. (1983). What Makes a Text Coherent? College Composition and Communication, 34(4), 417-429.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1990). Pragmatic word order in English composition. In U. Connor & A.M. Johns (Eds.). Coherence: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 43-65). Washington, DC: TESOL
Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P. (1982). Cohesion is not Coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4).
Carrell, P. (1987). Text as interaction: Some implications of text analysis and reading research for ESL composition. In U. Connor & B. Kaplan (Eds.) Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp.45-55). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Cheng, X., & Steffensen, M. S. (1996). Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2), 149-181.
Clyne, M., (1987). Discourse structures and discourse expectations: Implications for Anglo-German academic communication in English. In Smith, L. (Eds.) Discourse Across Cultures: Strategies in World Englishes. Prentice Hall: New York, London.
Connor, U. & Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Connor, U. & Schneider, M. (1990). Analyzing topical structure in ESL essays. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12. 411-427.
Connor, U. (1984b). A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second language students’ writing. Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication, 17, 301-316.
Connor, U. and Farmer, F. (1990). The teaching of topical structure analysis as a revision strategy for ESL writers. In B. Kroll (ed.) Second Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp.126-139). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
Connor, U. and Lauer, J. (1985). Understanding persuasive essay writing: linguistic rhetorical approach. Text 5, 309-326
Crismore, A., Markanen, R., and Steffensen, M.S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71.
Dimitrova-Gjuzeleva, S. (2001). Argumentative essay writing in English – what should we assess? Bulgarian foreign language teaching journal I, pp. 20-26.
Duchevska, A. (2005). Analiza na tekstot i diskursot vo makedonskiot yazik ['Text analysis and discourse of Macedonian language'] (Doctoral dissertation, Ss. “Cyril and Methodius” University, Faculty of Philology “Blazhe Koneski”, Skopje).
Evensen, L. S. (1990). Pointers to superstructure in student writing. In U. Connor & A.M. Johns (Eds.) Coherence: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp.169-183). Washington D.C: TESOL.
Firbas, J. (1974). Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to problems in functional sentence perspective. In F. Danes (Ed.). Papers in functional sentence perspective (pp.11-37). The Hague: Mouton.
Firbas, J. (1986). On the dynamics of written communication in light of the theory of Functional Sentence Perspective. In C. Cooper & Greenbaum (Eds.), Studying writing: Linguistic approaches (pp.40-71). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Georgievska-Sarzhoska, Е. (2010). Diskursni marker i coherentnost ['Discourse markers and coherence']. Yearbook, 36, 115-131. Ss. “Cyril and Methodius” University, Faculty of Philology “Blazhe Koneski”. Skopje.
Georgievska-Sarzhoska, Е. (2011). Sporeduvanje i organizatziski shemi na J1 i J2 ['Comparing the organizational patterns of L1 and L2']. Yearbook, 37. Ss. “Cyril and Methodius” University, Faculty of Philology “Blazhe Koneski”. Skopje.
Grimes, Joseph. E. (1975). The Thread of Discourse. Mouton Publishing. Walter de Gruyter
Halliday, M.A.K., & Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London. Longman.
Hoey, M. (1983). On the Surface of Discourse. London. George Allen and Unwin.
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE Research report no. 3. Champaign, IL, USA: NCTE
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological review, 85, 363-394.
Knott, A., and Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 18(1): 36-62.
Lautamatti, L. (1987). Observations on the development of the topic in simplified discourse. In Connor, U, & Kaplan, R.B. (Eds). Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text (pp.87-114). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lee, I. (1998). Enhancing ESL students’ awareness of coherence creating mechanisms in writing. TESL Canada Journal, 15(2), 36-49.
Lee, I. (2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: a classroom inquiry. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 135-159. Pergamon.
Minova-Gjurkova, L. (1997). Svrzuvachki sredstva vo makedonskiot yazik ['Linking devices in Macedonian language']. Detska radost. Skopje.
Minova-Gjurkova, L. (2000). Sintaksa na makedonskiot standarden yazik ['Syntax of standard Macedonian language']. Magor. Skopje.
Minova-Gjurkova, L. (2003). Stilistikata na sovremeniot makedonski yazik ['Stylistics of modern Macedonian language']. Magor. Skopje.
Pandev, D. (2004). Govorenje i pishuvanje: Veshtini ['Speaking and Writing: Skills'.] Gimnazisko obrazovanie. Prosvetno delo. Skopje.
Quirk, R. Greenbaum, S. Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1972). A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing. Oxford University Press: Oxford
Sasaki, M., & Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students’ expository writing. Language Learning, 46, 137-174.
Wikborg, E. (1985). Types of coherent breaks in university student writing. In N. E. Enkvist (Ed.) Coherence and composition: A symposium (pp.98-133). Åbo. Finland: Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation.
Wikborg, E. (1987). Coherence breaks in Swedish student writing: Misleading paragraph division. Unpublished manuscript. In Connor, U. & Schneider, M. (1990) Analyzing Topical Structure in ESL Essays. SSLA, 12, 411-427. Cambridge University Press.
Witte, S. (1983a). Topical structure and revision: An exploratory study. College Composition and Communication. 34, 313-341.
Witte, S. (1983b). Topical structure and writing quality: Some possible text-based explanations of readers’ judgments of students’ writing. Visible Language, 17, 177-205.