Cover not available
Part of
Learner Corpora and Language Teaching
Edited by Sandra Götz and Joybrato Mukherjee
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 92] 2019
► pp. 75–100

Cohesion or coesione?

L1 Italian learners’ use of linking adjuncts in academic essays

 | Georgia State University
This paper presents an analysis of the use of linking adjuncts in academic essays by L1 Italian learners as compared to native speakers of English using the revised Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis (CIA 2) method. Concordance analyses were performed for selected linking adjuncts in academic essays from the Italian subset of the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) and the Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays (LOCNESS). Log-likelihood values were calculated to identify cases of significant overuse and underuse. Next, the phraseological context surrounding the linking adjuncts was examined qualitatively. Results reveal variation in the use of some linking adjuncts by L1 Italian speakers as compared to native English speakers and show evidence of cross-linguistic influence. Implications include proposed pedagogic materials aimed at facilitating Italian learners’ acquisition of these cohesive devices.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Cohesion
    • 2.1Defining cohesion
    • 2.2Cohesion and L2 learning
    • 2.3Cohesion and cross-linguistic influence
    • 2.4Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis
    • 2.5The present study
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Linking adjuncts
      • 3.1.1Organizational linking adjuncts
      • 3.1.2Target linking adjuncts
    • 3.2Corpora
      • 3.2.1Learner corpus
      • 3.2.2Reference corpus
    • 3.3Analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Organizational linking adjuncts
      • 4.1.1Ordering linking adjuncts
      • 4.1.2Summarizing and concluding linking adjuncts
    • 4.2Target linking adjuncts
      • 4.2.1Consequently
      • 4.2.2Eventually
      • 4.2.3Rewording linking adjuncts
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Organizational linking adjuncts
      • 5.1.1Ordering linking adjuncts
      • 5.1.2Summarizing and concluding linking adjuncts
    • 5.2Target linking adjuncts
      • 5.2.1Consequently
      • 5.2.2Eventually
      • 5.2.3Rewording linking adjuncts
    • 5.3Pedagogical implications
    • 5.4Limitations and directions for future research
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 6 May 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.92.05dar
References (41)
References
Anthony, Lawrence. 2014. AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. <[URL]> (7 May 2018).
Barbieri, Federica. 2010. Review of Linking Up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Szilvia Papp & Maía Belén Díez-Bedmar (eds). Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(1): 148–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barton, Ellen L. 1995. Contrastive and non-contrastive connectives: Metadiscourse functions in argumentation. Written Communication 12(2): 219–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolton, Kingsley, Nelson, Gerald & Hung, Joseph. 2002. A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7(2): 165–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cambridge English Preliminary Handbook for Teachers. 2012. Cambridge: University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations.Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald & McCarthy, Michael. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide; Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage. Cambridge: Ernst Klett Sprachen.Google Scholar
“Common European Framework equivalencies.” Take IELTS with British Council. British Council. <[URL]> (12 May 2018).
Cowan, Ron, Choi, Hyun Eun & Kim, Doe Hyung. 2003. Four questions for error diagnosis and correction in CALL. CALICO Journal 23(3): 1–14.Google Scholar
Crossley, Scott A. & McNamara, Danielle S. 2012. Detecting the first language of second language writers using automated indices of cohesion, lexical sophistication, syntactic complexity and conceptual knowledge. In Approaching Language Transfer through Text Classification: Explorations in the Detectionbased Approach, Scott Jarvis & Scott A. Crossley (eds), 106–126. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farghal, Mohammed. 1992. Naturalness and the notion of cohesion in EFL writing classes. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 30(1): 45–50.Google Scholar
Ferris, Dana R. 1994. Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly 28(2): 414–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6: 167–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geertzen, Jeroen, Alexopoulou, Theodora & Korhonen, Anna. 2014. Automatic linguistic annotation of large scale L2 databases: The EF-Cambridge open language database (EFCamDat). In Selected Proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum, Ryan T. Miller, Katherine I. Martin, Chelsea M. Eddington, Ashlie Henery, Nausica Marcos Miguel, Alison M. Tseng, Alba Tuninetti & Daniel Walter (eds), 240–254. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training [Benjamins Translation Library 8]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, Sylviane. 1996. From CA to CIA and back: An integrated contrastive approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In Languages in Contrast. Text-based Cross-linguistic Studies, Karin Aijmer, Bengt Altenberg & Mats Johansson (eds), 37–51. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
. 2003. The international corpus of learner English: A new resource for foreign language learning and teaching and second language acquisition research. Tesol Quarterly 37(3): 538–546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Contrastive interlanguage analysis: A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1(1): 7–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, Sylviane, Dagneaux, Estelle, Meunier, Fanny & Paquot, Magali (eds). 2009. International Corpus of Learner English, Version 2. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane, Sanders, C. & Connor, U. 2007. LOCNESS: Louvain Corpus of Native English. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane & Tyson, Stephanie. 1996. Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes 15(1): 17–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gude, Kathy & Stephens, Mary. 2008. CAE Result: Student’s Book. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood & Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hasselgren, Angela. 1994. Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 4(2): 237–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan, Geertzen, Jeroen, Baker, Rachel, Korhonen, Anna & Alexopoulou, Theodora. 2017. The EF Cambridge Open Language Database (EFCAMDAT) Information for Users. <[URL]> (11 May 2018).
Hunston, Susan. 2002. Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
“IELTS Task 2 Writing Band Descriptors (Public Version).” Take IELTS with British Council. British Council. <[URL]> (11 May 2018).
Jarvis, Scott & Pavlenko, Aneta. 2008. Cross-linguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. New York NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Keith & Johnson, Helen (eds). 1998. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lardiere, Donna. 2003. Revisiting the comparative fallacy: A reply to Lakshmanan and Selinker, 2001. Second Language Research 19(2): 129–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Kent. 2013. Korean ESL learners’ use of connectors in English academic writing. English Language Teaching 25(2): 81–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, David Y. W. & Chen, Sylvia Xiao. 2009. Making a bigger deal of the smaller words: Function words and other key items in research writing by Chinese learners. Journal of Second Language Writing 18: 149–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markels, Robin Bell. 1984. A New Perspective on Cohesion in Expository Paragraphs. Carbondale IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Milton, John C. P. & Tsang, Elza Shuk-ching. 1993. A corpus-based study of logical connectors in EFL students’ writing: Directions for future research. In Studies in Lexis, Richard Pemberton & Elza Shuk-ching Tsang (eds), 215–246. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Language Centre.Google Scholar
Neary-Sundquist, Colleen A. 2013. The development of cohesion in a learner corpus. Studies in Second Language Learning & Teaching 3(1): 109–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxenden, Clive, Latham-Koenig, Christina & Seligson, Paul. 2013. English File Digital Third Edition Upper-Intermediate B2. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Petchprasert, Anongnad. 2013. A study of cohesive markers used in L1 and L2 essay writing: Translation versus direct composition. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies 19(1): 19–33.Google Scholar
Prat, Maria Teresa. 2008. Learner corpora at the crossroads of computer corpus linguistics, foreign language pedagogy and second language acquisition research. Corpora for University Language Teachers 74: 49–67.Google Scholar
. 2009. Computer learner corpora: Their use in research and in teaching and learning. Using Corpora to Learn about Language and Discourse 66: 199–234.Google Scholar
Rayson, Paul. 2015. Log-likelihood and effect size calculator. University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language. Lancaster University. <[URL]> (11 May 2018).
Sung Park, Eun. 2004. The comparative fallacy in UG studies. Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics 4(1): 1–4.Google Scholar
Werner, Valentin. 2017. Adversative pragmatic markers in learner language: A cross-sectional perspective. Corpus Pragmatics 1(2): 135–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar