LOGICAL RELATIONS IN STUDENTS' WRITTEN EXPRESSION
Dissertação apresentada ã Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina para obter o grau de Mestre em Le tras - Opção Ingles elLiteratura Correspondente.
GRAU DE MESTRE EM LETRAS
Opção I n g l i s e L i t e r a t u r a Cor r e s p ondent e .
Dra. Rosa We i ngol d Konder O r i e n t a d o r a
D r h n » C o o _r
denador do Curso de Põs-Gradua
ção em L e t r a s - opção I n g l e s
e L i t e r a t u r a Co r r e s p o nd e n t e .
Banca Exami nador a:
D r a . l R o s a Wei t i gol d Konder
P r o f ã : Carmem Rosa Calcfas
à minha o r ie n t a d o r a , Dra. Rosa Weingold Konder pelo seu i n t e r e s s e , sua o rie n ta ç ã o e f i c i e n t e e acima de tudo p e la sua amizade dedi cada e seu apoio c o n s ta n te ;
Ao p r o fe s s o r Mauro Guimarães pelo seu apoio e o r ie n t a r ã o ao tra b a lh o e s t a t í s t i c o d esenvolvido nesta d is s e r t a ç ã o ;
A Roberto F e r r e i r a S i l v e s t r e e S í l v i o B a c a l a r J ú n i o r por aj_ guns dos tra b a lh o s e s t a t í s t i c o s ;
Aos colegas p ro fe ss o re s e aos alunos do 69 ao 99 períodos do curso de L e tr a s da UFU no p rim e iro semestre de 1983 que co n trib u íra m com o m a te r ia l de a n a l i s e ;
Aos meus amigos Dr. Danilo F r e i r e Duarte e Laura Cardoso Duarte por todo apoio que me fo i dado;
Ao Nucleo de Processamento de Dados da UFU que p o s s i b i l i t o u a r e a liz a ç ã o das an ãlises e s t a t í s t i c a s aqui d e s e n v o lv id a s ; Ao S e t o r de M ecanografia e a D iv is ã o G r a f ic a da UFU p ela confecção deste t r a b a lh o ;
Ao Departamento de L e tr a s da UFU p ela oportunidade de reali_ za r e s ta d is s e r t a ç ã o ;
À U n iv e rsid a d e Federal de U b e rlâ n d ia [U FU );
Ao Programa de PÕs Graduação em L e tra s da UFSC, coordenação, p ro fe sso re s e colegas do curso;
à CAPES
A todos os meus amigos que me ajudaram d i r e t a ou i n d i r e t a mente na r e a liz a ç ã o deste t r a b a lh o ,
RESUMO
Esta d is s e r ta ç ã o c o n s is te no estudo da c o e rê n c ia in t e £ f r a s a l e e n tre unidades maiores do d is c u r s o . Foram a n a lisa d a s 227 redações dos gêneros n a r r a t i v o e e x p o s it iv o e s c r i t a s por alunos do Curso de L e tra s da U n ive rsid a d e Federal de U b e rlâ n d ia .
A h ip ó te se de que problemas outros alem da e s t r u t u r a da f r a s e e v o c a b u lá rio afetam as re la ç õ e s ló g ic a s em composi ções de alunos mais avançados em todos os n í v e i s e tip o s de d isc u rso fo i .confirmada p ela nossa p esq uisa. Os t e s te s aplica^ dos mostram que: (_1 ) os alunos apresentam maiores d if ic u ld a d e s na redação de composições do gênero e x p o s i t iv o ; ( 2 ) cada turma (69 a 99 sem estres) ê heterogênea e apresenta composições dos d iv e rs o s n í v e i s de org a n iz a çã o . Os grupos revelam os mesmos problemas de c o e rê n c ia i n t e r f r a s a l , e uso não apropriado de elementos de coesão. D iferen ças s i g n i f i c a t i v a s e n tre os semes
tre s foram detectadas em re la ç a o ã media do número de fra s e s por p a rá g ra fo e em re la ç ã o à co e rê n c ia e n tre p a rá g ra fo s . No que tange ã média de elementos de coesão apropriados por f r a se, os te s te s usados revelaram in t e r a ç ã o e n tre os grupos con tro la d o s por semestre e por tip o de d is c u r s o ; ( 3 ) quando as re daçoes foram a n a lis a d a s tomando como c r i t é r i o para a d iv is ã o de grupos a organização da composição e não a. d iv is ã o de grupo por sem estre, as redações de melhores n i v e i s mostram d i f e r e n ças s i g n i f i c a t i v a s em re la çã o às de nTveis i n f e r i o r e s em todas as v a r i á v e i s a n a lis a d a s , embora apresentem problemas de coe r ê n c ia .
de d iscu rso devem se c o n s t i t u i r em p r in c í p i o s fundamentais pa ra o ensino de redação em todos os n ív e i s de estudo.
ABSTRACT
This d i s s e r t a t i o n i s a study of aspects o f in te r s e n - t e n t i a l coherence and cohesion. I analysed a corpus of 227 com positions o f the n a r r a t i v e and e x p o s it iv e genres c o l le c t e d from students o f the "Curso de L e t r a s " a t "U n iv e rs id a d e Fede r a l de Uberl in d i a " . .
The h yp o th esis t h a t problems o th e r than sentence s t r u ç ture and vo ca b u la ry choice a f f e c t the lo g ic a l r e l a t i o n s in the compositions of the more advanced students a t a l l l e v e l s and d isco u rse types was confirmed by the re s e a rc h . The t e s t s a p p lie d have shown t h a t ( 1 ) the students experience g r e a te r d i f f i c u l t y w ith the e x p o s it iv e type o f d is c o u r s e ; ( 2 ) each semester group C^th - 9th) i s heterogeneous reg ard in g composi t io n a l o r g a n iz a t io n , thus a l l groups p re se n t the same problems o f i n t e r s e n t e n t ia 1 coherence, and of in a p p ro p ria te use of cohesive t i e s . Some s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s were found among the sem ester groups reg ard in g the mean o f sentences per p a ra graph and also o f paragraph coherence. With regard to the mean of a p p ro p ria te use o f cohesive t i e s per sen ten ce, the t e s ts used have found i n t e r a c t i o n between the groups c o n t r o lle d by semester o f study and type o f d is c o u r s e ; C3) when the data were an alysed using the c r i t e r i o n of com positional organization, w ith o u t taking in t o account group d i v i s i o n per semester of stu d y , the b e t t e r le v e l compositions showed s i g n i f i c a n t d i f feren ces from the lower le v e l ones in a l l the v a r i a b l e s analys; ed though p re se n tin g some coherence problems.
The r e s u l t s o f the research suggest t h a t d isco urse le v e l is su e s should form the b a sis of w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a t a l l l e v e l s .
Resumo ... ... v
A b s t r a c t ... ... . . . . ... V1-L i s t o f Tables ... ... X1-INTRODUCTION ... ... ... ... 1
CHAPTER ONE: THEORETICAL DISCUSSION ... ... 4
1. L o g ic a l R e la tio n s . . . .... ... 4
1 .1 . Cohe re nee ... 5
1 .1 .1 . O vert and Covert Links ... 7
1 . 1 .2 . Coherence: a broader concept ... 8
1.2 . Cohesion . . ... ... g 1 .2 .1 . In t r a s e n t e n t i al and In t e r s e n t e n t i al cohesion 10 1 .2 .2 . Cohesive fe a tu r e s ... ... 1 1 1.3. Coherence and Cohesion ... 1 5 2. Text and Discourse ... ... 1 5 CHAPTER TWO: RESEARCH DESIGN ... l 9 1. J u s t i f i c a t i o n . . ... ... ... ig 2. Hypothesis ... 20 3. O b je cti ves ... ... 20 4. L im it a t i o n ... ... ... 21 5. Procedure ... ... 22 5.1 . S u b je c ts ... 22 5.2. Data ... 24 5 .3 . Methodology ... .. 24
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH RESULTS . . . ... 30
1. Type o f Discourse ... .. 30
2. Semester o f Study . . . ... 31
3. Compositional O rg a n iz a tio n . . . .... ... 31
4. Fin dings and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ... 32
4 .1 . Number o f Sentences and o f Paragraphs ... 33
4 .2 . Data d i s t r i b u t i o n .... ... 35
4 .2 .1 . Number of Sentences per paragraph ... 35
4 . 2 .1 . 1 . Type o f Discourse ... 36
4 .2 .1 .2 . Semester o f Study ... 37
4 . 2 . 1 . 3 . Compositional O rgan ization ... 38
4 .2 .2 . Some Hypotheses Concerning the number o f Sentences per paragraph ... 39
4 .3 . A pp ro priate Use of Cohesive Ties ... 43
4 . 3 .1 . Type o f Discourse and Semester of Study . . 44
4 .3 .2 . Compositional O rg a n iz a tio n ... 70
4 .4 . In a p p r o p r ia te Use o f Cohesive Ties ... ... 73
4 .4 .1 . Type o f Discourse ... 75 4 .4 .2 . Semester o f Study ... si 4 . 4 .3 . Compositional O rganization ... 82 4 .5 . F a cto rs o f Incoherence ... ... 83 4 .5 .1 . S e n t e n t ia l Degree o f Incoherence ... 84 4 . 5 .1 . 1 . Type o f Discourse ... 84 4 . 5 . 1 . 2 . Semester o f Study ... 89 4 . 5 . 1 . 3 . Compositional O rganization ... 92
4 .5 .2 . Paragraph Degree o f Incoherence ... 1 04 4 . 5 . 2 . 1 . Type o f Discourse ... ... 1 05 4.5.2.21. Semester o f Study ... 107 4 . 5 .2 . 3 . Compositional O r g a n i z a t i o n ... m
C o n c l u s i o n ... ... ... ... 1 1 9
CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE TEACHING OF WRITING . 123
1. Teaching W r it i n g Communicatively ... ...124
2. The Process o f W r it in g ... ...128
3. Remedial Work ... ...134
3 .1 . The Problem o f Focus ... ...135
3.2 . Coherence and Cohesion ... ... ...138
Summary ... *. . ... ...1 49 CONCLUSION ... ... ...151
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... ... 157
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. S tu d e n ts ' age ... .... 22 Table 2. S tu d e n ts ' s tu d ie s a t P r i v a t e I n s t i t u t i o n s ... 23 Table 3. Students* grades ... ... 23 Table 4. Compositional O rgan izatio n Level o f The Data . . 32 Table 5. Number o f Sen ten ce s: Type o f Discourse . . ... 33 T a b l e 6 . Number o f P a r a g r a p h s : Type o f D i s c o u r s e . . . 34 T a b l e
7
. The Kol mogorov - Smirmov T e s t ... .... 35 Table 8 . K r u s k a l- W a llis One Way A n a ly s is o f V a ria n c e :S e n t e n c e s p e r P a r a g r a p h ... ... 35 Table 9. M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a ly s is o f V a r ia n c e : A pp ro priate
use o f C o h e s i v e T i e s ... ... 45 Table 10. A p p ro p riate Use of Cohesive T ie s : Discourse
Type and Semester o f Study I n t e r a c t i o n (Same
I tern In c ! u d e d )... 46 Table 11. A pp ro priate Use o f Cohesive T ie s : Discourse
Type and Semester of Study I n t e r a c t i o n (Same
Item E x c l u d e d ) ... ... ... 46 Table 12. A pp ro priate Use of Cohesive T ie s : S u bcateg o ries
in Each Type o f Discourse ... 48 Table 13. A ppropriate Use of Cohesive T ie s : Subcategories
in Each Semester Group Compositions ... 49 Table 14. A p p ro p ria te Use o f Cohesive T ie s : Compositional
O rg a n iz a tio n L e ve ls ... 71 Table 15. In a p p r o p r ia te Use of Cohesive T i e s : Frequency
in the C o n t r o llin g V a r ia b le s ... 74 T a b l e
1 6
. K r u s k a l - W a l1
i s One Way A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e :T a b l e T a b l e T a b l e T a b l e T a b l e T a b l e T a b l e T a b l e T a b l e T a b l e T a b l e T a b l e T a b l e T a b l e 17. M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a ly s is o f V a ria n c e : S e n t e n t ia l F a c to rs o f Incoherence ... 85 18. One Way A n a ly s is of V a ria n c e : S e n t e n t ia l
Incoherence Factors ... 88 19. S e n t e n t ia l Factors of Incoherence: Type of
Discourse ...„ ... 88 20. S e n t e n t ia l Fa cto rs o f Incoheren ce: Semester of
Study ... ... .. 9 i 21. S e n t e n t ia l F actors o f In co h eren ce: Composi-;.
t io n a l O rg a n iz a tio n ... 93 22. Kruskal-Wal 1 i s One Way A n a ly s is o f V a ria n c e :
Paragraph Factors o f Incoherence . ... .. 1 05 23. Paragraph F actors of Incoherence: Type of
Discourse ... 106 24. Number o f S en ten ce s: Semester o f Study ... 1 0 8 25. Number o f Paragraphs: Semester o f Study ... 108 26. Paragraph F a cto rs o f In co h eren ce: Semester o f
Study ... ... 109 27. Number o f Sen ten ce s: Compositional Organiza
tio n L e v e ls ... ... 1 1 2 28. Number of Paragraphs: Compositional Organiza
tio n Levels ... ... 1 1 2 29. Paragraph Factors o f In co h e re n ce : Composi
t io n a l O rg an iz atio n L e v e ls ... 1 1 3 30. Summary o f R e s u lts : A n a ly s is o f Variance . . . 1 2 2
The purpose o f the p re se n t study i s to i n v e s t i g a t e r e l a t i v e l y advanced s tu d e n ts ' a b i l i t y to organize t h e i r thoughts in w r i t i n g , which i s shown by t h e i r a b i l i t y to e s t a b l is h lo g i c a l r e l a t io n s h i p s between s e n te n ce s, paragraphs and la r g e r u n it s o f d is c o u r s e . I t th e r e fo r e t r i e s to d e t e c t the problems th a t the more advanced le v e l students have concerning te x tu a l coherence and co h e sio n . I t a lso t r i e s to a n a lyse the im p l i c a tio n s th a t these problems have f o r the te ach in g of w r it t e n e x p re s s io n .
To reach t h is aim I have decided to an alyse the written work produced by the students from 6 th to 9th semester "Le-
t r a s " course a t "U n iv e rs id a d e Federal de U b e rla n d ia "(U F U ) where I have taught s in c e 1978. I have, th u s, c o l le c t e d the composi tio n s which these groups wrote during the f i r s t semester of 1983. The d e c is io n to choose advanced le v e l tex ts stems fg^om two reasons: f i r s t , to avoid s t r u c t u r a l and vo ca b u la ry problems which might i n t e r f e r e in the purpose o f a n a ly s in g te x tu a l o rg a n iz a tio n ; secondly, to avoid coherence problems caused by in s u f
f i c i e n t developmental m a tu r ity of t h in k in g .
Textual o r g a n iz a tio n is p e rce ive d through aspects of coherence and of cohesion. Cohesion has been p ointed out as an im p ortan t p ro p e rty o f the w r i t in g q u a l i t y :
To some extent the types and frequencies of cohesive ties seem to reflect the invention s k ills of student writers . and. to influence the s t y l is t ic and organizational properties of the texts they write. (Witte and Faigley 1981: 202)
The a n a ly s is o f cohesion in the data fo llo w s H a llid a y and Hasan's (1976) model and th e o ry . The a p p r o p r ia te use o f
coh esive t i e s i s an alysed as c o n t r ib u t o r s to te x tu a l coherence. The in a p p r o p r ia t e use o f cohesive t i e s is analysed as breaking the coherence o f the t e x t . However, sin c e coherence i s not always o v e r t l y expressed and oth er problems may a f f e c t the o r g a n iz a t io n o f a t e x t , measures to d e te c t the presence o f incoherence were devised. They were c a ll e d f a c t o r s of in c o h e r ence and they were used to measure not o nly sentence meaning but a ls o the r e l a t i o n s h i p between sentences and paragraphs in b u ild in g up the u n i t o f language: the t e x t .
The im p lic a t io n s of the r e s u l t s o f the rese arch p o in t to the n e c e s s it y o f taking d is c o u rs e le v e l issu e s in t o a c count in the teach in g of w r i t i n g . The communicative fu n c tio n of language and the process o f w r i t i n g should provide the u n d e rly in g g u id e lin e s f o r d e v is in g w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n .
The study i s d iv id e d in t o f o u r chapters and three ap p e n d ice s. Chapter I p rovides a b r i e f review o f l i t e r a t u r e as regards the t h e o r e t i c a l d is c u s s io n of te x tu a l coherence and cohesion. I draw on the th e o rie s devised by M. A. K. H a llid a y and R. Hasan, W.R. tiinterow d, T. A. van D ijk and H.G. Wid- dowson.
Chapter I I presents the research design - the j u s t i f i c a t i o n , the h y p o th e s is , the o b j e c t iv e s and the methodology used. The p o p u la tio n in v o lv e d in the study i s c h a r a c t e r iz e d and the c r i t e r i a f o r the a n a ly s is are e s t a b lis h e d .
Chapter I I I d escribes the r e s u l t s o f ;.the a n a ly s is and o f the t e s t s a p p lie d and d iscusses them g iv in g examples
from the data o f each a sp e ct a n a ly s e d .
Chapter IV an alyses the im p lic a t io n s of the research f o r the teach in g o f w r i t i n g , ioipli c a t i ons based v.i an the p r i n c i p l e s d e riv e d from the communicative fu n c tio n of language
and the process o f w r i t i n g . I t a lso co n tain s t e n t a t i v e sug ge stio n s of s t r a t e g i e s to develop the s tu d e n ts ' a b i l i t y to express themselves c o h e re n tly in w r i t t e n E n g lis h .
The appendices in c lu d e a l l the m a t e r ia l used in the a n a l y s i s : the q u e s tio n n a ir e which the students answered, the s c a le used in the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f the compositions according to com positional o r g a n iz a t io n , and the ta b le s used f o r the computation o f r e s u l t s .
The r e s u l t s of the research have confirmed the hypoth e s is t h a t as w e ll as sentence s t r u c t u r e and vo ca b u la ry choice, o th e r problems a f f e c t the q u a l i t y of advanced students'written e x p ress i o n .
THEORETICAL DISCUSSION
1, LOGICAL RELATIONS
I t i s g e n e r a lly agreed t h a t lo g i c a l r e l a t i o n s in la n guage are dependent on cohesion and coherence, whi ch make fo r the u n it y and c o n s is te n c y o f the language u n i t , the t e x t . Some authors (see Maria Thereza Fraga Rocco, 1981; Othon M. G a r c ia , 1983; Fred Ls Bergmann, 1967) and even d ic t i o n a r y d e f i n i t i o n s (cf. W e b s te r's New Twentieth Century D ic t io n a r y Unabridged ,
1975) do not make a d i s t i n c t i o n between these two terms. How e v e r , they are t r e a t e d as two d i f f e r e n t concepts in th is d i s s e r t a t i o n as w i l l be ex p lain ed below. Although the concepts are d i s t i n c t , one does not n e c e s s a r i ly exclude the o t h e r . I n s te a d , they u s u a lly i n t e r a c t f o r the c r e a t io n o f l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s .
1 .1 . COHERENCE
In o rd e r to e x p la in the notion o f coherence, I draw on three authors wfio have t r i e d to des c r i b l e and d efin e such a complex and a b s t r a c t concept: tf. T. fifinterowd, T. A. van D ijk and M. A. K.i H a l l i d a y . .Coherence i s d efin ed by Winterowd C197Q: 8281 as the “ in t e r n a l s e t o f c o n s is t e n t r e la t io n s h ip s in any s t r e t c h o f d is c o u r s e " . I t fo llo w s t h a t coherence e x is t s a t two l e v e l s . The f i r s t , i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l coherence e x is t s w it h in the sentence and i s determined by case and syntax as put by Winterowd (1970 : 829) who c i t e s F illm o r e to define case:
In the basic structure of sentence C- we find what might be called the 'proposition1, a tenseless set of relationships involv ing verbs and nouns (and embedded sentences, i f there are any), separated from what might be called the 'modality' constituent. This la tte r w ill include such modalités on the sentence-as-a-whole as negation, tense, mood, and aspect.
Syntax i n vo lve s: trans-formations such, as complement, r e l a t i v e , gerund and o th er c o n s t r u c t io n s , except c o o r d in a t io n . The second le v e l coherence, i ntersen ten t i al coherence, e x i s t s w it h in and/ o r between se ts of sequences o f sentences and is determined by what Winterowd c a l l s t r a n s i t i o n s :
I argue that there is a set of relationships beyond case and syntax and that this set constitutes the relationships that make for coherence - among the transformational units in a paragraph, among the paragraphs in a chapter, among the chapters in a book. I call these relationships TRANSITIONS, and I claim that beyond the sentence marker, the doublecross, we perceive coherence only as the consistent relationships among transitions. (Winterowd 197Q: 829)
These two l e v e ls are a ls o recognized hy T. A ..v a n D ijk when d e s c rib in g the semantics o f coherence:
Côheeence.. relations exist between parts of sentences (or prop ositions) and the model structures involved must therefore be such that values can be assigned to these parts (.operators, quajn
t i f i e r s , predicates, arguments, e t c . ) . , (van Dijk 1976: 96)
and also when mentioning l i n e a r o r s e q u e n tia l coherence which he d e fin e s under the notion o f m acro -stru ctu re as the,"relations holding between p ro p o s itio n s expressed by composite sentences and sequences o f sen ten ces" ( v a n D ijk 1976: 95 ) . His claim fo r the e x is te n c e o f a more global or o v e r a ll coherence co in cid e s w ith what i s a lr e a d y mentioned i n Wi nterowd ' s view o f t r a n s i -
t i o n s . This g lob al coherence i s determined by the m acro-stru c tures which a r e , in t u r n , determined by the l i n e a r coherence o f sequences. The m acro -stru ctu re o f a sequence o f ^sentences i s t h e ' "sem an tic r e p r e s e n ta tio n o f some k in d , v i z . , a p ro p o s i tio n e n t a i l e d by the sequence o f p r o p o s itio n s u nd erlying the d isco urse Cor p a r t of i t ] " Cvan D ijk 1 976: 3 7 ).
M. A. K. H a l lid a y a ls o d escribes these two l e v e l s o f coherence in terms o f theme systems and in fo rm a tio n systems:
While the information unit structure, in terms of given and new, gives the message coherence with what has gone before, the organization of the clause into theme and rheme gjves i t
coherence within it s e lf . (Joia and Stenton 1980: 37)
T h e r e fo r e , the r e l a t io n s h i p s p e rc e iv e d between theme and rheme make f o r i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l coherence and those between the e l e ments o f the in fo rm a tio n s t r u c t u r e , given and new, make fo r
the i n t e r s e n t e n t i a l coherence.
This s tu d y , deals mostly w ith second le v e l coherence, i . e . , the r e l a t io n s h i p s p e rce ive d between sentences and between l a r g e r u n its o f disco urse in the r e a l i z a t i o n of the t e x t . T h e re fo r e , any re fe re n c e s to coherence are to he in t e r p r e t e d a t t h is le v e l .
1 .1 .1 . OVERT AND COVERT LINKS
As d e fin e d in the previous s e c t i o n , f o llo w in g Win- terowd, coherence is the " i n t e r n a l s e t o f c o n s is t e n t r e l a t i o n ships in any s t r e t c h o f d is c o u r s e " . These r e l a t io n s h i p s can be o v e r t l y o r c o v e r t l y marked. They are o v e r t l y expressed when an element o f coh esion , which i s considered to be an aspect f o r a c h ie v in g coherence, is evide nced . They are c o v e r t when, though not c l e a r l y mentioned, the r e l a t io n s h i p s between seji tences or se ts o f sentences can s t i l l be c o n s i s t e n t ly perceived. Using these concepts, Widdowson d is t in g u is h e s between proposi^ t io n a l and i l l o c u t i o n a r y development and t h e r e f o r e , between cohesion and coherence:
I want to suggest that where we can establish a propositional relationship across sentences, without regard to what i l locutionary acts are being performed, by reference to formal syntactic and semantic signal, then we recognize COHESION. Cohesion, then, is the overt relationship between propositions expressed through sentences. Where we recognize that there: is a relationship between the illocutionary acts which propositions, not always overtly linked, are being used to perform, then we are perceiving the COHERENCE of the discourse". (Widdowson 1978: 28/29]
He a lso recognizes t h a t " w r i t t e n communication o f i t s ,i nature r e q u ire s a much h ig h e r degree o f interdependency between cohe sion and coherence" (Widdowson 1979: 97). Interdependency is shown in the i n t e r a c t i v i t y which serves as the l i n k between them. I n t e r a c t i vi ty is seen in the r e l a t io n s h i p between pro duction and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in the case o f w r i t t e n d is c o u rs e . He says t h a t a l l disco urse is i n t e r a c t i v e and he compares the producer o f a w r i t t e n disco urse to a p la y e r who i s p la y in g with an unseen and unknown opponent. The
player/producer anticipates his opponent's moves by writing them into the discourse. In consequence, the game may well proceed in a way which is different from how the writer original ly intended i t to go because his anticipation modifies his intentions. And the reader too begins to anticipate from the f i r s t move onwards, and plays his own game as he reads.
covers a broader meaning sin ce i t comprises o v e r t and c o v e r t r e l a t io n s h i p s between sentences and la r g e r u n it s o f discourse. A number of f a c t o r s which do not a llo w a s t r i c t d i s t i n t i o n between coherence and cohesion have to be taken in t o co n sid e r a t io n when w r i t t e n work i s concerned. One o f them, perhaps
the most im p ortan t one, i s t h a t l o g i c a l th in k in g can be express sed w ith or w ith o u t o v e r t cohesive item s. Another, which is a n e g a tiv e one, i s t h a t there may be o v e r t cohesive elements which, however, do not produce a coherent t e x t , as I t r y to show in f ig u r e 1. Other f a c t o r s which prove t h i s p o in t w i l l be d e a lt w ith in the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the research r e s u lt s in chapters 3 and 4.
Figu re 1 - Coherence and Cohesion (Widdowson 1979: 147}
1 .1 .2 . COHERENCE : A BROADER CONCEPT
In t h is d i s s e r t a t i o n , the use o f the term coherence
Coherence w ith o u t Cohesion = Coherence Coherence plus Cohesion = Coherence Cohesion w ith o u t Coherence = Incoherence
1 .2 . COHESION
I draw on R a l l i d a y and Hasan's work in the a n a ly s is of cohesion. The concept o f cohesion is bound to the n otion o f t e x t , s in c e i t i s p a r t o f the te x tu a l component of the li n g u i ^ t i c system in the fu n c tio n o f c r e a tin g t e x t u r e . The te x tu a l component i s one o f the three major in te rd e p e n d e n t functional semantic components o f the l i n g u i s t i c system, the o th e r two being the id e a t i o n a l and in t e r p e r s o n a l components. Below, I make a b r i e f re fe re n c e to these language fu n c tio n s s in c e cohe sion cannot be considered an i s o la t e d fe a t u r e in the l i n g u i s t i c system. Cohesion is embedded in i t f o r li n k i n g the p a rts o f the whole and f o r the c r e a t io n of the u n i t o f la n guage.
The id e a t io n a l fu n c tio n o f language is concerned with the ex p ressio n of co n ten t. I t i s through t h is fu n c tio n th a t the speaker o r w r i t e r expresses in language h is experience of the phenomena of the re a l w o r ld , " in c lu d in g the in n e r world of h is own con scio usness" ( H a l l i d a y 1970: 143). I t comprises two p a r t s : the e x p e r i e n t i a l which concerns the r e p r e s e n ta tio n of exp erien ce and the lo g i c a l which expresses the a b s t r a c t lo g
i c a l r e l a t i o n s w hich, in tu rn , d e r iv e i n d i r e c t l y from e x p e r i ence.
The in t e r p e r s o n a l fu n c tio n i s concerned w ith the s p e a k e r's or w r i t e r ' s r o l e , h is own in t r u s i o n on the communi c a tio n process - the expression of his a t t i t u d e s and judge ments, the co n n ative and ex pressi ve r e l a t io n s h ip s he se ts up between h im s e lf and the l i s t e n e r o r re ad er.
The te x tu a l f u n c t io n , of which cohesion is one p a r t in the e s ta b lis h m e n t of cohesive r e l a t i o n s from one sentence to
another in d is c o u r s e , comprises the resources language has " f o r making l i n k s w ith i t s e l f and w ith fe a tu r e s o f the s i t u a tio n in which i t i s used" [ H a l l i d a y 197Q: 143}. I t
enables the speaker or writer to construct 'texts' or connected passages of discourse that is situationally relevant; and enables the listener or reader to distinguish a text from a random set of sentences. (Halliday 1970: 143)
Cohesion i s "th e s e t o f semantic resources f o r li n k in g a SEN TENCE w ith what has gone before" ( H a l l i d a y and Hasan 1980: 10); In t h is sense, cohesion i s recognized where "the -INTERPRETATION o f some element in the disco urse i s dependent .on .th a t of a n o th e r" ( H a l l i d a y an(j Hasan 1980: 4 ) . I t i s t h e r e f o r e , r e
l a t io n s o f meaning which turn sep arate c la u s e s , sentences and paragraphs in t o a t e x t . The r e a l i z a t i o n o f cohesion is made through what Hal 11 day and Hasan c a l l a t i e , which they d efine as "a s in g le in s ta n c e o f cohesion, a term f o r one occurrence o f a p a i r of c o h e s iv e ly r e la t e d ite m s " ( H a l l i d a y and Hasan 1980: 3 ) .
1.2.1:. INTRANSENTENTIAL AND INTERSENTENTIAL COHESION
As te x t i s encoded in sentences, cohesi on i s recognized a t the i n t r a s e n t e n t ia 1 le v e l , a t the l e v e l o f grammatical units * ^Séniencçs, clauses , groups, words - sim ply because they are s t r u c t u r a l and s t r u c t u r e i s a u n if y in g r e l a t i o n . This kind of cohesion, however, i s not the o b je c t o f t h is a n a ly s is sin ce i t i s concerned w ith the r e l a t io n s t h a t make f o r the cohesion across se n te n c e s, through the t e x t . Cohesion a t the te x tu a l l e v e l is above c o n s id e r a tio n s o f s t r u c t u r e . I t i s a r e l a t i o n a l concept and i s d efin ed as "th e s e t of p o s s i b i l i t i e s t h a t e x i s t in the
language f o r making the te x t hang to g e th e r: the p o t e n t ia l th a t the speaker or w r i t e r has a t h is d is p o s a l" C R a llid a y and Hasan 1980: 18/19-1. To quote Ha I l f day and Hasan again in this respect:
C-.-l cohesive ties between sentences stand out more clearly be cause they are the ONLY source of texture, whereas within the sentence there are the structural relations as w e ll.'In the. de scription of a text, i t is the intersentence cohesion that is si£ nificant, because that represents the variable aspect of cobe^ sion, distinguishing one text from another. But this should not obscure the fact that cohesion is not, s t r ic t ly speaking, a rela tion 'above the sentence'. I t is a relation to which the sentence, or any other form of grammatical structure, is simply irrelevant.
(Halliday and Hasan 1980: 9}
1 .2 .2 . COHESIVE FEATURES
Cohesion is r e a l iz e d through the 1 exi cogrammatical sys^ tem. I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , "expressed p a r t l y through grammar and p a r t l y through v o c a b u la ry " CHalli.day and Hasan 1980: 5 ) . Thus, H a l lid a y and Hasan d is t in g u is h the fo llo w in g c a te g o r ie s o f co h e siv e t i e s : grammatical coh e sio n , l e x i c a l cohesion, and con j u n c t i o n . Grammatical cohesion comprises three su b ca te g o rie s - r e f e r e n c e , s u b s t i t u t i o n and e l l i p s i s - which " in v o l v e closed system s: simple options o f presence or absence, and systems such as those o f person, number, p ro x im ity and degree o f com p a r is o n " C R a llid a y and Hasan 1980: 303). L e x ic a l cohesion r e fe rs to the e f f e c t achieved by the open-ended system of la n guage, the v o c a b u la ry . I t i n v o l v e s "the s e l e c t i o n o f a l e x i c a l item t h a t i s in some way r e la t e d to one o c c u rrin g p r e v io u s ly " ( H a l l i d a y and Hasan 1980: 303). C o n ju n ctive cohesion is s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the p reviou s r e l a t i o n s mentioned. I t i s d e sc rib e d as an in sta n c e o f i n d i r e c t sem antic cohesion f o r i t i s through t h e i r s p e c i f i c meanings t h a t c o n ju n c tiv e e l e ments "pres’Uppose the presence o f o th e r components in the d i s course" CKal 1 iday. and Hasan 1980: 226J. Below , I t r y to
d e fin e each o f the c a te g o rie s and r e s p e c t iv e s u b ca te g o rie s sin c e I deal w ith them in the a n a ly s is o f cohesive t i e s .
1 . 2 .2 .1 . REFERENCE
H a l l i d a y and Hasan d e fin e re fe re n c e as "th e r e l a t io n s between an element o f the t e x t and something e ls e by re fe re n ce to which i t i s in t e r p r e t e d in the given in s t a n c e " ( H a l l i d a y and Hasan 1S18Q: 3081. I t i s t h e r e f o r e , a r e l a t i o n between meanings a t the sem antic l e v e l . Reference i s p o t e n t i a l l y co h esive when i t in v o lv e s endophoric r e l a t i o n s , v i z . , r e l a t io n s w it h in the t e x t , t h e r e f o r e , text-determ ined in o p p o sitio n to exophoric r e l a t i o n s which are s i t u a t io n a l ly determ ined, thus o u tsid e the t e x t and not c o h e siv e . Endophoric r e l a t i o n s are s a id to be e i t h e r a n a p h o ric , i . e . , presupposing an item th a t appears in the preceding te x t or c a t a p h o r ic , presupposing an item t h a t appears in subsequent t e x t . Endophoric r e l a t i o n s are con sidered cohesive when they extend across sen ten ces. This i s m ainly c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of an ap horic r e fe re n c e though we do have c a ta p h o ric r e l a t i o n s which are p e r f e c t l y c o h e s iv e .
Reference comprises three types o f r e l a t i o n s : personal, dem onstrative and com p arative. Personal re fe re n c e i s " r e f e r " ence by means of fu n c tio n in the speech s i t u a t i o n through the catego ry o f PERSON" ( H a l l i d a y and Hasan 1980: 3 7 ). I t i n cludes the personal pronouns and t h e i r p o ss e ssive form s, out o f which o n ly the t h i r d persons - hji, him , hi s , they, thei r , them, thei rs , i t , i ts - are in h e r e n t ly cohesive f o r they t y p i c a l l y r e f e r a n a p h o r ic a ly or even c a t a p h o r ic a ly to o th e r items in the t e x t . T h is , however, does not exclude the p o s s i b i l i t y o f f i r s t and second person pronouns and determ iners being cohesive
in c e r t a i n in s ta n c e s as fo r example in quoted speech. The r e verse a ls o occurs when t h ir d persons are used e x o p h o r i c a l l y , t h e r e f o r e , not t e jc t u a lly c o h e siv e .
Dem onstrative re fe re n c e i s "r e fe r e n c e hy means o f l o c a t io n , on the s c a le o f PROXIMITY" (Ha 1-liday and Hasan 1 980: 37). I t in c lu d e s the n e u tra l the and the s e l e c t i v e demonstra, t i v e s : th i s , t h a t , these , t h o s e , h e r e , t h e r e , now, t h e n .
Comparative re fe re n c e i s " i n d i r e c t r e fe re n c e by means o f IDENTITY o r S IM IL A R IT Y " ( H a l l i d a y and Hasan 1980: 37). I t t y p i c a l l y c o n s is ts o f a d j e c t iv e s or adverbs r e f e r r i n g backwards o r forwards to an item o f the t e x t as f o r examp 1 e , same, equal, s i mi 1 a r , mo re , be tte r , e t c .
1 .2 - 2 .2 . SUBSTITUTION
S u b s t it u t io n i s a r e l a t i o n between l i n g u i s t i c items and th e r e fo r e on the 1 exi cogrammati cal l e v e l , the le v e l of form. I t i s an in h e r e n t l y te x tu a l f e a t u r e s in c e i t is mostly an anaphoric r e l a t i o n . The " s u b s t it u t e i s a s o r t o f counter which i s used in p lace o f the r e p e t i t i o n o f a p a r t i c u l a r item" ( H a l l i d a y and Hasan 1980: 8 9 ), having the same s t r u c t u r a l f u n c t io n .
S u b s t it u t io n comprises th ree kinds o f r e l a t i o n s . One f u n c t io n in g as a noun and being r e a liz e d by one, ones , and same; the second fu n c tio n in g as a verb and being r e a liz e d by do; and the l a s t one fu n c tio n in g as a clause being r e a liz e d by so and n o t . According to these three f u n c t io n s , s u b stitu tio n i s c l a s s i f i e d in t o nom inal, verb al o r c l a u s a l .
1 . 2 . 2 . 3 . E L L IP S IS
E l l i p s i s i s a s p e c ia l kind o f s u b s t i t u t i o n : w h ile in s u b s t i t u t i o n an e x p l i c i t counter such as one, do, sj), e t c . is used as a pi ace-marker f o r what i s presupposed, in e l l i p s i s the s t r u c t u r a l presupposed item i s l e f t u nsaid. That i s why e l l i p s i s is d e fin e d as s u b s t i t u t i o n by zero.
Lik e s u b s t i t u t i o n , e l l i p s i s comprises three kinds of r e l a t i o n s : nom inal, verbal and c l a u s a l . Nominal e l l i p s i s is the omission o f an item w it h in the nominal group. Verbal e l l i p s i s occurs w it h in the verb al group and c la u s a l e l l i p s i s i n vo lve s omission " t h a t i s e x te rn a l to the verb i t s e l f a f f e c t i n g o th e r elements in the s t r u c t u r e of the c la u s e " ( H a l l i d a y and Hasan 1980: 1971, v i z . , the modal or the proposi t i onal element.
1 . 2 .2 .4 . LEXICAL COHESION
L e x ic a l cohesion i s , as the term su g g e sts, achieved through l e x i c a l ite m s , th e re fo re a t the 1 exi cogrammati cal l e v e l . I t i s broken down in to two c a t e g o r ie s : r e i t e r a t i o n and c o l l o c a t i o n . R e it e r a t i o n is l e x i c a l cohesion in which the r e i t e r a t e d item r e f e r s back to another l e x i c a l item having the same r e f e r e n t . Cohesive l e x i c a l r e i t e r a t i o n is e s t a b lis h e d in the presence of the r e p e t i t i o n o f the same word, o f a synonym or near synonym, of a su p e ro rd in a te o r of a general word.
■, C o llo c a t io n can be d escribed as "the a s s o c ia t io n o f l e x i c a l items th a t r e g u l a r l y co-occur" Q l a l l i d a y and Hasan 1980: 284} in a d ja c e n t senten ces. L e x ic a l items which tend to share s i m i l a r c o n te x ts , s i m i l a r l e x i c a l environment tend to form a cohesive chain i f o cc u rrin g across sentence b oundaries. The d i f f e r e n t kinds o f co-occurrence o f the c o l l o c a t i o n a l type
are antonyms, complementari.es, words from ordered s e r ie s or even when the meaning o f l e x i c a l items is generated by a s s o c i a tio n s made between them and the ideas they re p re s e n t in the environment in which they are being used.
1 .2 .2 .5 . CONJUNCTION
Conjunction i s described as an in s ta n c e o f semantic co n n ectio n , because o f the s p e c i f i c meaning t h a t each conjunc t i v e element c a r r i e s . I t i s cohesive not in the sense in which the o th e r elements o f cohesion are d escrib ed as p h o r ic , point, ing forwards o r backwards, but i t i s cohesive only indirectly presupposing t h a t what fo llo w s i s connected to what has gone somewhere before in the t e x t . A lik e o th e r cohesive it e m s , , con, j u n c t i v e s which occur w it h in the sentence are d escribed s t r u £ t u r a l l y , thus not being t e x t u a l l y c o h e s iv e . However, when coji n e c tin g se p a ra te se n te n c e s, c o n ju n c tiv e t i e s r e c e iv e fo rce and c o n tr ib u te to te x tu a l cohesion.
H a l l i d a y and Hasan d is t in g u is h fo u r broad types o f coji j u n c t i v e r e l a t i o n s . They are a d d i t i v e , a d v e r s a t i v e , causal and tem poral. Each o f them i s t y p i f i e d by the words and, ye t , s o , and then r e s p e c t i v e l y . They a ls o d is t in g u is h what they c a ll c o n t in u a t iv e ite m s , which though not ex p ressin g any p a r t ic u la r r e l a t io n s h i p w it h , the fo u r kinds o f c o n ju n c tiv e r e l a t i o n s men_ tion ed have cohesive fo rce in u n ify in g the p a rts o f the text. They are in d iv id u a l items such as wel 1, now, o f c o u r s e , a f t e r al 1 , e t c .
Almost a l l cohesive c a te g o rie s and su b c a te g o rie s de s c r ib e d here appear in the data w ith d i f f e r e n t fre q u e n c ie s of occurrence but w ith li m it e d vo cab u lary range as shown in Cha£ t e r t h r e e . The c a te g o r ie s which h a rd ly e v e r occur are substi_
t u t io n and e l l i p s i s .
1 .3 . COHERENCE AND COHESION
This study deals w ith the r e l a t io n s h i p s between sen tences and fie tween s e ts o f se n te n ce s. That i s to say that though i n t e r s e n t e n t i a l coherence has been mentioned and s t r u c t u r a l co hesion is reco g nized , the a n a ly s is is m ostly dependent on i n
t e r s e n t e n t i a l connectedness. I t i s t h e r e f o r e , assumed th a t the whole i s more than the sum of i t s c o n s t it u e n t p a r t s . This a s sumption determ ines the c r i t e r i a f o r the a n a ly s is o f „c o h e r ence/cohesion in the s tu d e n ts ' com positions: (_1 ) how they lin k the p a rts o f the compositions and ( 2 1 how these p a rts i n t e r a c t to form a coherent whole. I th e r e fo r e an alyse the occurrence o f cohesive items and co n sid e rin g t h a t these do not always suf f i c e to ensure coherence, I have e s t a b lis h e d what I have called
'f a c t o r s o f in c o h e r e n c e 1, e ig h t in a l l , C s e e s e c t io n 5.2 -
Chapter Z \ through which la c k o f coherence is a n a ly s e d .
2. TEXT AND DISCOURSE
Text and d isco u rse are taken to r e f e r to s i m i l a r 'c o n cepts by many a u th o rs . H a llid a y and Hasan and also T. A. van D i j k , f o r in s t a n c e , seem to use them in te r c h a n g e a b ly when r e f e r r i n g to the communicative fu n c tio n o f language in use. T. A. van D ijk uses the term te x t to "denote the a b s t r a c t theore_t i c a l c o n s tr u c t u n d e rly in g what i s u s u a lly c a l l e d a DISCOURSE" Cvan D ijk 1976: 3], H a l lid a y and Hasan's concept o f te x t is not d i s t i n c t from t h a t o f d is c o u r s e , both comprising the gram mar above the sentence and the grammar below the sentence. They
r e f e r to t e x t as a passage o f d isco urse which i s coherent with
r e s p e c t to the con text of the s it u a t io n 'a n d - w i th re s p e c t to i t s e l f . feLhen e x p la in in g the general meaning of cohesion, the two term s, t e x t and d is c o u rs e , are used in te r c h a n g e a b ly as can he observed from the e x t r a c t s below:
The general meaning of cohesion is embodied in the concept of text. C-.'-l Cohesion expresses the continuity that exists between one part of the text and another.
( . . . ) The continuity that is provided by cohesion consists, in the most general terms, in expressing at each stage in the dis course the points of contact with what has gone before. ( . . . ) i t has another more fundamental significance, which lies in the interpretation of the discourse. I t is the continuity provided by cohesion that enables the reader or listener to supply all the missing pieces, all the components o f the picture which are not present in the text but are necessary to it s interpretation. CHalliday and Hasan 1980: 298/299)
Other a u th o rs , however, make a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n be tween t e x t and d is c o u rs e . Widdowson, f o r example, c o r r e la t e s t e x t and cohesion w ith semantics (u sa g e } and d isco u rse and co herence w ith pragm atics (u se ) :
What I have tried to do in this paper is to distinguish two ways of looking at language beyond the lim it of the sentence. One way sees i t as text, a collection of formal objects held together by patterns of equivalences or frequencies or by cohesive de vices. The other way sees language as discourse, a use of seji tences to perform acts of communication which cohere into larger communicative units, ultimately establishing a rhetorical pat tern which characterizes the piece of language as a whole as a kind of communication. (Widdowson 1979: 98)
Although d is t in g u is h in g between te x t and d is c o u rs e , Widdowson sees some interdependency between them as they are
complementary ways of looking a t language (see s e c t io n 1 . 1 . 1 . in thi s C h a p t e r ) .
In t h is d i s s e r t a t i o n , the terms te x t and d isco urse are used in t e r c h a n g e a b ly . This d e c is io n stems from two reasons: one i s th a t most o f t h e a n a ly s is o f coherence and cohesion is based on the t h e o r ie s and concepts d escribed by i- M. A. . K.
Ha 111 day and Hasan (cohesion 1 and hy T. A. van D ijk (coherence) who adopt such a p o s i t i o n . I f o llo w H a l lid a y and Hasan in th a t t e x t r e f e r s to any passage o f d is c o u r s e , r e a l i z e d or encoded in s e n te n ce s, e i t h e r through spoken o r w r i t t e n medium and ,of w hatever le n g th , which forms a u n i f i e d whole. The second is t h a t sin c e language e x i s t s to make communication p o s s ib le and has the t e x t or d isco urse as i t s u n i t , in the p re s e n t work I do not see any n e c e s s it y f o r making a d i s t i n c t i o n in medium - w r i t t e n or spoken - f o r both f u l f i l l the communicative language
f u n c t io n . In t h is way, the compositions c o l le c t e d f o r analysis are assumed to be passages of t e x t / d is c o u r s e .
RESEARCH DESIGN
1 . JUSTIFICATION
Classroom experience in teaching composition to s t u dents of E n g lis h as a fo re ig n language has in f o r m a lly shown th a t s p e l l i n g , vo cab u lary c h o ic e , or sentence s t r u c t u r e are not the only problems which h in d er the comprehension o f what i s w r i t t e n . The compositions are u s u a lly b u i l t up o f s e r ie s o f statem ents about a s u b je c t m atte r which are put to g e th e r to produce a te x t but which do not develop a u n i t of thought. U n ity is many times broken by extraneous exp ressio n s or sen te n c e s , loose se n te n c e s, or even by abrupt change o f focus. The compositions consequently la ck in coherence and a 1 so in cohesion. These in t e r n a l problems in the s tu d e n ts ' w r i t t e n tex ts are g r e a t l y r e f l e c t e d in the way paragraph d i v i s i o n is used: very f r e q u e n t ly e v e ry s in g le sentence forms a paragraph.
a n a lyse asp ects o f cohesion and o f coherence in more advanced s tu d e n ts ' com positions. The d e c is io n to a n a ly s e t h is le v e l te x ts was taken f o r convenience o f stu d y . Although agreeing w ith Winterowd t h a t "c a s e s " and "s y n ta x " are the f i r s t and second la y e r s r e s p e c t i v e l y o f r e l a t io n s h i p s to make f o r co h erence, I am f a r more in t e r e s t e d in the coherence p e rce ive d beyond the sentence marker. I , t h e r e f o r e , had expected the more advanced s tu d e n ts ' compositions to have fewer problems a t the f i r s t two la y e r s of coherence, as such problems might g r e a t l y d e fe a t my purpose.
A g a in s t my e x p e c t a t io n s , however, almost 45% (m ostly l e v e l s 4, 3 and 2} of the compositions c o l le c t e d show a very high frequency o f problems in sentence s t r u c t u r e (.see 4 . 5 . 1 . 3- Chapter 3) .
2. HYPOTHESIS
The h yp o th e sis i s : problems oth er than those i n v o l v ing sentence s t r u c t u r e or vocab u lary choice a f f e c t the logical r e l a t io n s and the q u a l i t y o f the compositions of. r e l a t i v e l y advanced students a t a l l l e v e l s (c o m p o sitio n a l o rg a n iz a tio n - le v e l 1 to 4; semester o f study - 6 th to 9th) and discourse type ( n a r r a t i o n and e x p o s i t io n ) .
3. OBJECTIVES
The c h i e f aim o f t h is study is to i n v e s t ig a t e which fe a tu r e s have m ostly a f f e c t e d the i n t e r s e n t e n t i a l coherence of the more advanced s tu d e n ts ' composi t i ons le a v i ng out in tra s e n - t e n t i a l le v e l is s u e s . As p a r t o f t h is main o b j e c t i v e , the
frequency o f elements o f cohesion e i t h e r a p p r o p r ia t e ly or ina£ p r o p r i a t e l y used i s i n v e stig a te d . In a d d it io n , the formal con sequence caused by the problems r e la t e d to cohesion and to coherence, paragraph d i v i s i o n , i s considered. To sum up, a comparison among the sub-groups o f the grouping v a r i a b l e s : the fo u r semesters o f s tu d y , the fo u r com positional o rg a n iz a tio n l e v e l s and between the two types of d isco urse i s e s t a b lis h e d in o rd e r to f i n d out whether there i s any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r ence in the mean o f occurrence o f the fe a tu r e s o f cohesion, and o f the f a c t o r s o f .incoherence between them.
4. LIMITATION
The compositions which c o n s t it u t e the corpus f o r the a n a ly s is have been c o l le c t e d in a n a tu ra l te a ch in g - le a rn in g srt u a t io n . I had no co n trol over the methodology, choice o f to p ic s and genre, or number o f compositions c o l le c t e d from each stu d en t or group. The stu d y , t h e r e f o r e , re v e a ls the p e c u l i a r i t i e s of each group during the semester in which the research was c a r r ie d out - 1st semester o f 1983. Although the corpus r e f l e c t s a real s i t u a t i o n , which is d e s i r a b l e , a t the same time i t has imposed r e s t r i c t i o n s on the r e s u l t s of the investigation, as I had to deal w ith groups w ith d i f f e r e n t numbers o f compo n e n ts.
I have t r i e d to counterbalance the d is c re p a n c ie s in the number o f compositions per group and per stu d e n t by work ing w ith r e l a t i v e fre q u e n cie s and w ith the means o f each f e a ture per sentence and per com position. A11 the fre q u e n cie s and al 1 the means have been considered in r e l a t i o n to the whole data o f each c o n tro l group.
5. PROCEDURE
5 .1 . SUBJECTS
The s u b je c ts were students from the 6 th to 9th semes te r s o f the Portug ue se-Eng lish " L e t r a s " Course a t " U n iv e r s i d a de Federal de U b e rlâ n d ia " (U F U ). They were 47 r e g u la r students in a l l : 14 stu d en ts were e n r o lle d in the 6 th semester E n g lish Language Course, 16 in the 7 th , 5 in the 8 th , and 12 in the 9 th.
In o rd e r to c h a r a c t e r iz e them and each group they be longed to , the students answered a q u e s tio n n a ir e (Appendix A) in which they were asked q u estio ns about t h e i r age, grades, p r iv a t e co u rses, t r a v e l s and courses abroad. The r e s u l t s are the f o llo w in g :
1. The age o f the m a jo r it y o f the students (89% - 42 students out of 47) ranges from 21 to 30 (T a b le 1) .
Table 1 - Number o f students per age-bracket.
Studen ts ' age-bracket
Semester Group 15 - 20 21 - 30 31 - 40 Over 40
6 th 1 1 2 0 1
7 th 0 14 2 0
8 th 0 4 1 0
9 th Q 1 2 0 0
Total 1 42 3 1
2. Most of the students ( 6 6 % - 31 stu d e n ts) besides the regular c la s s e s in the " L e t r a s " Course had a lre a d y s tu d ie d or were stu d yin g E n g lish a t p r iv a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s , as demonstrated in Table 2.
Table 2 - Number o f students/sem esters a t p r iv a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s .
Semester Number of semesters of study at;private institutions Group 1 - 2 3 - 4 5 - 6 7 - 8 9 or more none
6 th 1 2 4 1 1 5
7th 4 0 2 1 4 5
8 th 0 0 2 0 2 1
9 th 2 I Q 1 3 5
Total 7 3 8 3 10 16
I t i s worth, noting th a t 44.7% (21 s tu d e n ts ) of the sti£ dents had attended o r had been atte n d in g o th e r E n g lis h courses f o r 5 semesters or more.
3. Out of the whole group, 6 students had t r a v e l l e d abroad: 2 from the 6 th , 2 from the 7th, 1 from the 8 th and 2 from the 9th sem ester group. Only three o f them had taken one y e a r courses abroad.
Owing to these p e c u l i a r i t i e s in the s t u d e n t s ' E n g lish s tu d ie s and e x p erien ce o f actu al language use, a l l groups - 6 th to 9th semester - were heterogeneous in t h e i r knowledge and performance of E n g lis h . To a c e r t a in e x t e n t , Table 3, which in d ic a t e s the s t u d e n t s ' f i n a l grades, shows t h is h e te ro g e n e ity .
Table 3. Number of students per g rade- brack et,
Semester ______ _________Grade-bracket ___________________ ____Group 80% - 100% 60% - 79% 4.0% - 59% below 40% 6 th 4 6 3 1 7th 8 5 3 0 8 th 2 3 Q 0 9th 5 4 3 0 T o ta ls 19. 18 9. 1
5 .2 . DATA
The corpus c o n s is ts o f .227 compositions c o lle c te d from the four groups o f s tu d e n ts . They are 41 compositions from the 6 th semester group, 48 from the 7th , 20 from the 8 th , and 118 from the 9t h .
The compositions had been assigned by the teachers o f each group as academic homework. In the 6 th , 7th and 8 th seme^ t e r groups, they u s u a lly came l a s t in a s e r ie s o f e x e rc is e s on te x ts in the textbooks and e x t r a - c la s s r e a d in g s . In the 9th semester group, they were p a r t o f a course in com position.
At the c o l l e c t i o n s ta g e , I was not concerned w ith type o f d is c o u rs e . L a t e r , a t the a n a ly s is s ta g e , the compositions were c l a s s i f i e d by genre. The te a c h e r s , in the semester o f the i n v e s t i g a t i o n , were m ainly working w ith e x p o s it iv e and n a r r a t i v e prose w ith the 6 th, 7th and 8 th semester groups. Although the 9th semester te a c h e r focused only on e x p o s it iv e and argu m en tative ty p e s , 6 n a r r a t iv e s appeared in the group.
5 .3 . METHODOLOGY
As the c r i t e r i a used to an alys e the s t u d e n t s ' writings were determined by the d e c is io n to focus a t t e n t io n on t e x t lej/ el issu e s - cohesion and coherence- e r r o r s in s p e l l i n g , word choice or syntax were ignored unless they s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t e d meaning and the u n ity of thought in the t e x t .
The a n a ly s is developed in three s ta g e s . In the ' f i r s t , each composition was numbered and read, the number o f sen tences and paragraphs were counted, and then the compositions were c l a s s i f i e d according to both type o f d isco urse and compo s i t i o n a l o r g a n iz a tio n (Appendix B ) . The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a
sentence was made by the i n i t i a l c a p it a l l e t t e r and the punc tu a tio n mark t h a t ended i t . The paragraphs were i d e n t i f i e d by in d e n t a t io n . The types o f d isco urse found were n a r r a t i o n , expo s i t i o n and argum entation. The mixed types were reduced to the prim ary ones s in c e the w r i t e r ' s main in t e n t i o n was considered. Those composi tio n s whose type o f d isco u rse proved to defy i deji t i f i c a t i o n because o f t h e i r g re a t number o f incom prehensible and n o n sen sical sentences were taken as unci a s s i f i a b le . Each d isco urse type r e c e iv e d a number and the com positions were numbered a c c o r d in g ly (\Scale -1 “ Appendi x B ) .
Compositional o r g a n iz a tio n was ra te d acco rd in g to a f i v e le v e l s c a le adapted from M ullen 1980, which ranges from e x c e l l e n t ( J e v e l 0 : the compositions with w e ll developed i n t r £ d u c tio n , use o f d iv i s i o n s and t r a n s i t i o n s , s u b s t a n t ia l p a ra graphs to develop ideas and a c o n clu sio n suggesting the s i g n if ic a n c e o f the c e n t r a l id e a } to poor ( l e v e l 4 : the composi tion s w ith no o r g a n iz a t io n , no focus and no c o n s id e r a tio n o f t o p i c } ( S c a l e 2, Appendix B } . A ll these r e s u l t s were put in t a b u la r form f o r computer processin g ( J a b l e 3 - Appendix C).
The second stage c o n siste d of the a n a ly s is o f the coh£ s iv e t i e s in each com position. A ta b le c o n s is t in g of H a ll i day and Hasan's c a te g o rie s and s u b ca te g o rie s o f cohesive t i e s was organized and completed w ith the cohesive elements th a t were used in each com position. A d i s t i n c t i o n was made between ap p r o p r ia t e and in a p p r o p r ia t e use (T a b le 1 - Appendix C) , the cohesive items were counted and put in t a b u la r form f o r com p u te r p rocessin g (Appendix C * Table 3 ).
In the t h i r d s ta g e , I organized a ta b le c o n s is t in g of two p a r t s . In the f i r s t p a r t , the SENTENCES were considered in r e l a t i o n to :
1 . the in fo rm a tio n conveyed - t h r e e kinds o f sentences were counted and a n a ly se d :
1 . 1 . incom prehensible sentences - a sentence was considered incom prehensible when the re s e a r c h e r could not process the in fo rm a tio n conveyed, or when i t conveyed c o n tr a d ic t o r y o r n o n sen sical id e a s .
1 . 2 . sentences expressing repeated ideas - a sentence was considered as re p e a tin g ideas when the same <• or
synonymous words were used w ith o u t adding any inform^ tio n to what had a lre a d y been w r i t t e n .
1 .3 . sentences ex p ressing c i r c u l a r thoughts - c i r c u l a r i t y w ith o u t a purpose was found in compositions where the w r i t e r a f t e r f i n i s h i n g the e x p o s itio n or n a r r a t io n of one a sp ect o f the s u b je c t m atter went on to another and
then went back to the f i r s t w ith no apparent reason. Sometimes, ci rc u l a r i ty was a lso d etected in composi t io n s where the p ro g ressio n in the e x p o s itio n o r n a r r a t io n could not be p e r c e iv e d .
2 . re la te d n e s s between sentences - two kinds o f sentences were counted and analysed h ere:
2 . 1 . disconnected sentences - a sentence was considered di.s connected from the o th e r when n e it h e r an o v e r t nor a c o v e r t r e l a t io n s h i p could be p e rc e iv e d between i t and the sorrounding ones, or when i t s meaning wandered away from the s u b je c t m atter under fo cus.
2 . 2 . wrongly connected sentences - a sentence was con sid ered wrongly connected when e i t h e r a wrong conjunction
In the second p a r t o f t h is stage a n a l y s i s , the ..PARA GRAPHS were considered in r e l a t i o n to:
1 . s t r u c t u r e - a paragraph was considered undeveloped when i t did not d is c u s s , expound o r n a r r a t e the ideas i t proposed t o .
2 . re la te d n e s s between paragraphs - two kinds o f paragraphs were counted and an alysed in t h is s e c t io n :
2 . 1 . disconnected paragraph - a paragraph was considered d isco nnected when there was nothing to li n k i t to the o th e rs e i t h e r o v e r t l y or c o v e r t l y . In most cases, there was the p o ss ib i 1 i ty ■ o f takin g i t out o f the composition w ith o u t a f f e c t i n g the o v e r a ll meaning.
2 . 2 . wrongly connected paragraph - a paragraph was co n sid ered wrongly connected when e i t h e r a wrong conjunction or a wrong s ig n a l lin k e d i t to the r e s t o f the composi_ t i o n . CTable 2 - Appendix B)
The counting numbers o f each incoherence f a c t o r in each composition were put in t a b u la r form f o r computation.
The r e s u l t s o f the a n a ly s is were taken to computer pr£ cessin g in s o r d e r to e s t a b l i s h :
1 . the number of sentences and of paragraphs per com position; 2 . the mean o f number of sentences per paragraph;
3. the frequency o f compositions which had any cohesive t i e s ; 4. the mean of cohesive t i e s per sentence in t h e i r a p p ro p ria te
and in a p p r o p r ia t e use. This mean was c a lc u la t e d tw ic e . In the f i r s t in s t a n c e , r e p e t i t io n of the same item was c o n sid ered c o h e s iv e . In the second in s t a n c e , i t was excluded;
5. the frequency of compositions which had each category and subcategory o f cohesive t i e s ;
6 . the mean of each category ( r e f e r e n c e , s u b s t i t u t i o n , e t c . ) per sentence in i t s a p p ro p ria te and in a p p r o p r ia te uses; 7. the mean o f each type o f each subcategory (p e r s o n a l, demon
s t r a t i v e and com parative r e f e r e n c e ; a d d i t i v e , a d v e r s a t i v e , e t c . c o n ju n c t io n ; e t c . ) per sentence in i t s a p p ro p ria te and in a p p r o p r ia t e u s e s ; "
8 . the frequency o f compositions in which there appeared at l e a s t one f a c t o r which might break coherence in the general oc
currence - sentence and/or paragraph - and a ls o in each i n d iv id u a l f a c t o r - incom prehensible s e n te n ce s, disconnected s e n te n c e s , e t c . ;
9. the mean of each f a c t o r which might break coherence per com p o s it io n in sentences and paragraphs.
10. the general degree o f incoherence per com position. This degree was considered under the two aspects a n a ly s e d : sen tences and paragraphs. In the form er, the general index of incoherence was computed by adding up the mean o f each f a c t o r of incoherence r e l a t i v e to sentence per composition - the mean o f incom prehensible se n te n ce s, o f disconnected se n te n c e s, sentences ex p ressing repeated id e a s , e t c . In the l a t t e r , the general index of incoherence concerning the paragraphs was determined by adding up the mean on undeve loped, disconnected and wrongly r e la t e d paragraphs per com p o s i t i o n .
The means d escribed were computed in two in s t a n c e s . In the f i r s t , the o v e r a l l mean in which a l l compositions were
considered was c a l c u l a t e d . £n the second, the p a r t i a l mean was c a lc u la t e d by takin g in t o account only the com positions in which .there appeared any of the features analysed. T h e re fo re , a l l zeros t h a t were r e g is t e r e d were ignored. Thus, i f a composition had no cohesive element or any f a c t o r o f incoherence i t was excluded from the computation in each stage o f a n a ly s is.. However,
t h is p a r t i a l mean has to be considered in r e l a t i o n to the whole d ata.
The comparison between the subgroups was e s t a b lis h e d through an A n a ly s is o f V a r ia n c e . The c o n tro l v a r i a b l e s were type o f d is c o u r s e , semester of study and com positional o r g a n i z a t io n ; the independent v a r ia b le s were the mean o f sentences per paragrap h , the mean of cohesive elements per sentence and the mean o f presence o f f a c t o r s o f incoherence (^sentence and p a ra g ra p h ).
In o rd e r to compare these groups, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) t e s t was a p p lie d to v e r i f y i f the data s a t i s f i e d the requirem ents f o r the use of a p a ra m e tric t e s t . The s i g n i f i cance le v e l e s t a b lis h e d f o r a l l t e s t s was 0.05 ( 5 % ) . For those f e a tu r e s which were approxim ately norm ally- d is t r ib u t e d the groups were compared using the M u l t i v a r i a t e and One Way a n a l y s i s o f V a r ia n c e . The Tukey HSD procedure was used to make m u lt ip le comparison among the groups. For those . i; fe a tu re s which were not norm ally d i s t r i b u t e d , the non-parametri c t e s t , the Kruskal-Wal 1 is One Way A n a ly s is o f Variance was used in the comparison o f the groups.
In the next c h a p te r , the r e s u lt s o f the a n a ly s is are shown and d iscussed under the views o f the su p p o rtin g t h e o r e t i c a l background presented in Chapter 1. Examples from the data i l l u s t r a t e the d is c u s s io n .
RESEARCH RESULTS
In t h is ch apter the r e s u l t s of the a n a ly s is are given and d iscu sse d . The stages which were d escribed in s e c tio n 5.3 in Chapter 2 and the c o n t r o l li n g v a r i a b l e s TYPE OF DISCOURSE, SEMESTER OF STUDY and COMPOSITIONAL ORGANIZATION d i r e c t the p r e s e n t a t i on.
1 . TYPE OF DISCOURSE
According to type of d is c o u r s e , out of a t o t a l of 221, 53 compositions were c l a s s i f i e d as n a r r a t i v e , 165 as e x p osi t i v e and 3 as a rg um en tative ; 6 compositions were not included in the t o t a l number because i t was im possible to c l a s s i f y them according to genre which was not e v id e n t enough because of length or coherence problems. Owing to the small number of argum entative compositions and to the s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
