Lexical Cohesion in Academic Discourse: A comparative analysis of Iraqi and native English writers’ published articles
محورهای موضوعی : Journal of Teaching English Language StudiesJaafar Issa Abdulabbas 1 , Fatemeh Karimi 2 , Ahmed Rawdhan Salman 3 , Mehdi Dalili 4
1 - Department of English , Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
2 - Department of English, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
3 - English Department, College of Arts and Humanities, Al-Mustaqbal University, Iraq
4 - Esfahan Azad University- English department
کلید واژه: Lexical cohesion, academic discourse, simple repetition, derived repetition, Iraqi English writers, native English writers ,
چکیده مقاله :
Abstract
This present study intends to examine the occurrence and role of lexical cohesion markers in academic and scientific articles authored by Iraqi and native English speakers. Using wordlists, the study measures the prevalence of 'direct repetition' and 'related repetition' to map lexical patterns constructing cohesion across two corpora of academic publications. We analyzed the frequency data through close textual examination in order to explore the selection of lexical cohesive links and their non-linear connections in both corpora. Besides, we recruited a corpus-based approach to uncover semantic connotations of specific words in across the texts in both corpora. The findings suggested that a high rate of lexical cohesion markers does not correlate with effective writing skills. Out text analyses demonstrated that Iraqi authors often excessively used cohesive devices while their texts still contained serious problems with regard to developing ideas and arguments. The corpus analysis highlights Iraqi writers often produced cohesively weak texts due to deviating from standard semantic contexts. The study concluded that the integration of textual and corpus-based approaches offers an exhaustive understanding of how non-native authors employ lexical cohesion in both semantically and syntacti9caly well-formed structures.
Abstract
This present study intends to examine the occurrence and role of lexical cohesion markers in academic and scientific articles authored by Iraqi and native English speakers. Using wordlists, the study measures the prevalence of 'direct repetition' and 'related repetition' to map lexical patterns constructing cohesion across two corpora of academic publications. We analyzed the frequency data through close textual examination in order to explore the selection of lexical cohesive links and their non-linear connections in both corpora. Besides, we recruited a corpus-based approach to uncover semantic connotations of specific words in across the texts in both corpora. The findings suggested that a high rate of lexical cohesion markers does not correlate with effective writing skills. Out text analyses demonstrated that Iraqi authors often excessively used cohesive devices while their texts still contained serious problems with regard to developing ideas and arguments. The corpus analysis highlights Iraqi writers often produced cohesively weak texts due to deviating from standard semantic contexts. The study concluded that the integration of textual and corpus-based approaches offers an exhaustive understanding of how non-native authors employ lexical cohesion in both semantically and syntacti9caly well-formed structures.
References
Al-Ghazalli, M. F., & Majli, N. M. (2019). A study of lexical cohesion in women's articles written by native and non-native speakers of English. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 7(1), 10-25.
Beaugrande, R. de & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.
Bentz, C., Verkerk, A., Kiela, D., Hill, F., & Buttery, P. (2015). Adaptive communication: Languages with more non-native speakers tend to have fewer word forms. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0128254.
Binalet, C. B., & Wilang, J. D. (2023). Language functions in undergraduate classroom discourse. Arab World English Journal, 14(4), 345-361. Retrieved from https://awej.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/24.pdf
Booth, P. (2010). The vocabulary performance of native and non-native speakers and its relationship to learning style. Malaysian Journal of English Language Teaching and Research, 6(3), 45-67.
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52(2), 237-259.
Chen, A. C. H. (2024). From sequentiality to schematization: network-based analysis of covarying collexemes in Mandarin degree adverb constructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. De Gruyter. Retrieved from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/cllt-2024-0037/html
Cheng, W. (2009). Describing the extended meanings of lexical cohesion in a corpus of SARS spoken discourse. In J. Flowerdew & M. Mahlberg (eds.) Lexical Cohesion and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 65-83.
Connor, U. (1984). A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second language students’ writing. International Journal of Human Communication 17 (3): 301-316.
Daneš, F. (1974). Functions of Sentence Perspective and the Organization of the Text. In: F. Dand, (ed.) Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague: Academia, 106-128.
Davoodi, E., & Kosseim, L. (2017). On the contribution of discourse structure on text complexity assessment. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.05800.
De Clercq, B. (2015). The development of lexical complexity in second language acquisition: A cross-linguistic study of L2 French and English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 45-60.
El-Gazzar, N. (2006). Lexical cohesive devices in Arab students’ academic writing: Implications for teaching vocabulary, MA Thesis, American University of Sharjah.
Enkvist, N. E. (1978). Coherence, pseudo-coherence, and non-coherence. In I. O. Ostman (ed.) Cohesion and semantics. Abo: Abo Akademi Foundation, 109-128.
Farahani, M. V., & Ghane, Z. (2022). Unpacking the function (s) of discourse markers in academic spoken English: a corpus-based study. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 45(1), 49-70.
Fernández, J. M. C. (2024). Aproximaciones a los mecanismos textuales cohesivos y vocablos mestizos en la narrativa minera boliviana. Revista de Estudios Bolivianos. Retrieved from https://ojs.umsa.bo/ojs/index.php/estudiosbolivianos/article/view/869
Flowerdew, J. (2009). Use of signalling nouns in a learner corpus. In J. Flowerdew & M. Mahlberg (eds.) Lexical Cohesion and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 85-102.
Flowerdew, L. (2024). Corpus-based ESP genre analysis and corpus-assisted discourse studies (CADS): exploring connections. Journal of Corpora and Discourse Studies. Cardiff University Press. Retrieved from https://jcads.cardiffuniversitypress.org/en/articles/10.18573/jcads.124
Gaillat, T., Simpkin, A. J., & Venant, R. (2024). Linguistic interoperability within a unified architecture. Langues & Langage à l'Ère du Numérique. HAL Archive. Retrieved from https://hal.science/hal-04712737/
Granger, S. (2002). A bird’s eye view of learner corpus research. In S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (eds.) Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3-13.
Gutwinski, B. (1976). Cohesion in Literary Texts. The Hague: Mouton.
Halliday, M. & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Socialsemiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. and R. Hasan. (1985). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hasan, R. (1984). Coherence and cohesive harmony. In J. flood (ed.) Understanding reading comprehension. Delaware: International Reading Association, 181-219.
Hoey, M. (1991b). Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huber, P., & Carenini, G. (2022). Towards understanding large-scale discourse structures in pre-trained and fine-tuned language models. arXiv preprint. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.04289
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, R., Zane, E. R., & Grossman, R. B. (2022). Like, it's important: The frequency and use of the discourse marker like in older autistic children. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 7, 23969415221129132.
Kebsa, A. (2024). The Effectiveness of Thesaurus-Assisted Writing in Improving Algerian EFL Learners' Synonymy Use as a Measure of Lexical Cohesion in Academic Writing. University of Biskra. Retrieved from http://archives.univ biskra.dz/bitstream/123456789/29011/1/Aimen_KEBSA.pdf
Khalil A. (1989). A study of cohesion and coherence in Arab EFL College students’ writing. System 17 (3): 359-71.
Leech, G. (1998). Learner corpora: what they are and what can be done with them. In S. Granger (ed.) Learner English on Computer. London & New York: Longman
Lobato, O. A. (2024). Propriedades semânticas: análise do uso de sinonímia em produções textuais escolares. University of Maranhão. Retrieved from https://repositorio.uema.br/handle/123456789/3165
López Cortez, S. M., & Jacobs, C. L. (2023). The distribution of discourse relations within and across turns in spontaneous conversation. arXiv preprint. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.03645
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Michaelson, E. (2024). What is the proper function of language?. Inquiry, 1-24.
Ming, W. T., & Jun, P. (2024). Computer-aided annotation of lexical cohesive devices in parallel texts for translator and interpreter training. Applying Technology to Language and Translation Studies. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003399261-8/computer-aided-annotation-lexical-cohesive-devices-parallel-texts-translator-interpreter-training-wong-tak-ming-pan-jun
Morris, J., and Hirst G. (2006). The subjectivity of lexical cohesion in text. In J. C. Chanahan, Y. Qu, & J. Wiebe (eds.) Computing attitude and affect in text: Theory and Applications. Springer, Dodrecht, The Netherlands, 41-47.
Palmer, A., Sporleder, C. & Linlin, L. (2012). So to Speak: A Computational and Empirical Investigation of Lexical Cohesion of Non-Literal and Literal Expressions in Text. Discourse: A journal of linguistics, psycholinguistics and computational linguistics 11: 1-24.
Scarcella, R. (1984). Cohesion in the writing development of native and non-native English speakers. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California). Dissertation Abstracts International 45, 1386A.
Scott, M. (1997). PC Analysis of Key Words and Key Key Words. System 25 (1): 1-13.
Seidlhofer, B. (2002). Pedagogy and local learner corpora: Working with learning driven data. In S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (eds.) Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 213-234.
Stubbs, M. (2001a). Computer-assisted text and corpus analysis: lexical cohesion and communicative competence. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. E. Hamilton (eds.) The Handbook of discourse Analysis. Malden Massachusetts, Oxford: Blackwell, 304-320.
Stubbs, M. (2001b). Words and Phrases. Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tanskanen, S. K. (2006). Collaborating towards Coherence: Lexical Cohesion in English Discourse. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
These references should provide a solid foundation for your research. Let me know if you need additional sources or specific topics within lexical coherence.
Waelateh, B. (2016). The comparison of pronunciation in English with Thai, Malay and Arabic by minority Malay Muslims in Thailand. In Vopava, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the 6th MAC 2016. Prague: MAC Prague consulting Ltd., 187-202.
