INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
In order to produce effective communicative text, it is important for EFL learners to attend to cohesion According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), ―the concept of cohesion is a semantic one, which refers to relation of meaning that exist within a text‖ (p 4) The phenomenon of cohesion occurs when the interpretation of an element depends on another in text In practice, cohesion is a criterion for assessing the writing skills in high-stake English proficiency tests such as IELTS and TOEFL Under the Bachman‘s model of communicative competence (1990, p 87), cohesion has an important part in textual competence of language users.However, the role of cohesion in EFL writing has not reached unanimous consensus among researchers In general, there have been two major approaches to research on cohesion: one focused on cohesion as individual ties (a single instance of cohesion) in isolation; the other attempted to align cohesion with coherence These two approaches have underpinned the research on cohesion in EFL writing, manifesting in two opposing research strands
In the first strand, cohesion was examined as composed of individual ties For example, Khalil (1990) investigated frequencies of cohesive devices used in EFL written texts Zhang (2000) researched the number of cohesive devices in expository writing by EFL university students Similarly, Tran (2011) explored the frequencies of cohesive ties in argumentative essays by EFL learners More recently, Crossley, Kyle, and McNamara (2016) examined cohesive devices at global, local, and text levels used by university students While cohesion has been examined from a range of research settings, it tended to be broken down into individual ties in isolation Many scholars (e.g., Crossley et al., 2016; Flowerdew, 2013) agree that cohesive devices do not operate in isolation
As a result, cohesion in this strand was often found distinct from coherence Connor (1984) pointed out that cohesion was poorly correlated with coherence in English learners‘ written texts Likewise, Khalil (1989) found similar findings when correlating cohesion with coherence in EFL writing Leki, Cumming, and Silva
(2009) commented that cohesion does not do their job of tying in EFL texts, and these texts are uninterpretable despite presence of cohesive device Crowhurst (1980) thus recommend that the most informative research on cohesion in students' writing does not come from merely counting instances; instead, researchers should focus on differences that exist in the way a particular cohesive item is used
Meanwhile, the second strand attempted to intertwine cohesion together with coherence Morley (2006) analyzed the use of lexical cohesion as resources for structuring argument in English newspaper discourse Tanskanen (2006) investigated the use of lexical cohesion as contributing to coherence across different text types Alarcon (2013) examined the relationship between lexical cohesion and writing quality in argumentative essays written by undergraduate students in a Filipino university Berzlánovich and Redeker (2012) investigated the alignment between lexical cohesion and rhetorical structure in expository and persuasive texts
From this body of research emerges two important considerations for the present study First, the studies claimed to investigate relationship between cohesion and coherence While cohesion tended to be fixed since it was mainly based on Halliday and Hasan‘ classical model (1976), coherence has been approached from different perspectives For example, Connor (1984) used multiple measures (topical structural analysis and problem-solving model) to approach coherence of argumentative writing Meanwhile, Khalil (1990) adopted Grice‘s maxims of cooperation to measure coherence Berzlánovich and Redeker (2012) employed Rhetorical Structural Theory (RST) scheme of relations to examine coherence Although numerous studies have been conducted to investigate cohesion, research on cohesive resources for realizing rhetorical function has remained rather scarce
Second, while many studies were conducted on cohesion as realizing rhetorical functions, they were mainly based on native speakers‘ data rather than EFL written texts Morley (2006) was interested in newspaper discourse written by professional writers Similarly, Berzlánovich and Redeker (2012) investigated lexical cohesion aligned with rhetorical structure of texts by native language users The only exception that could be found is Alarcon (2013), who was concerned with rhetorical functions of lexical cohesion in argumentative writing by EFL learners in the Philippines There is, then, a lack of research into cohesion that is aligned with rhetorical in the context of EFL learner writers, especially at English centers Thus, it is still unclear whether the use of cohesive devices contribute to rhetorical functions in EFL written texts
The present study finds itself in the second research strand on cohesion, that is, as contributing to rhetorical organization of texts Its focus is on expository writing as this genre is required by the research setting, on which the present research is based Moreover, when comparing (lexical) cohesion between expository texts and persuasive texts, Berzlánovich and Redeker (2012) found that lexical cohesion was more closely aligned with rhetorical structure of expository texts than that of persuasive texts Informed by these researchers, expository writing provides a suitable context for investigating cohesion However, unlike Berzlánovich and Redeker, this present study only concerns elaboration, a rhetorical function that is required much in this genre (Zhang, 2000).
AIM OF THE STUDY
Focusing on elaboration, the present study places itself in the Halliday and Matthiessen‘s model of elaboration (2014) as it not only addresses cohesive relations but also aligns them with elaborating relations, which corresponds to rhetorical functions featured in expository writing The discussion on the framework and its relevance to expository writing will be provided in Chapter 2 For now, motivated by the model, the study aims to explore the use of conjunctive and lexical relations for elaboration in expository paragraphs by intermediate-level EFL learners.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Informed by the research aim, it is now possible to formulate the main research questions concerning conjunctive and lexical relations aligned with the rhetorical functions of expository writing for the present study:
1 What conjunctive relations are used for elaboration in expository paragraphs by intermediate-level EFL learners?
2 What lexical relations are used for elaboration in expository paragraphs by intermediate-level EFL learners?
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The present investigation concerns intermediate-level EFL learners, who have little formal training in English linguistics, especially on lexical relations The knowledge they gained on conjunctions and lexical relations came from the instructions in the textbook Get Ready for IELTS (Aish, Short, Snelling, Tomlinson, & Geyte, 2016)
However, this background does not mean that the learners are incapable of using conjunctions and lexical relations Just as a language user does not need formal training in linguistics to to use lexical relations, the EFL learners can use the linguistic resources in their writing, either consciously or unconsciously
The present study is confined to the expository paragraph only Though this scope is quite narrow, the level of paragraph plays fundamental role in the process of learning of the participants It lays a building block for transitioning to writing essays Moreover, paragraph makes a suitable choice for the analysis of elaboration and its corresponding lexical relations These are originally relationships between clauses (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014), so applying them to the level of paragraph, i.e., topic sentence and supporting sentences is more viable than some higher units like essays According to Halliday and Matthiessen (2014), elaboration is a set of logical- semantic relationships However, the author notes that it is important to interpret these
‗logical‘ relationships in their own terms as part of the semantics of a language, and not to expect them to fit exactly into formal logical categories – although since the latter were derived from natural language in the first place there will obviously be a close relationship between the two (p 460).
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
One of the starting points for this project is the assumption that cohesive devices are not used effectively to tie EFL texts as informed by previous studies (Connor, 1984; Khalil; 1990; Zhang, 2000), including expository ones For this reason, the present study does not aim to challenge these findings; rather, it describes the use of cohesive relations as contributing to elaboration of expository paragraphs The outcome could be utilized to show learners where their use of cohesive devices is effective or ineffective, not in isolation but for elaboration In its turn, although elaboration is only basic moves in the whole system of rhetorical structure in text, it is much used in expository writing (Zhang, 2000).
ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS
This thesis consists of six chapters Following this introduction, Chapter 2 reviews relevant literature on expository writing to supply a clearer context for addressing the research questions It considers Halliday and Matthiessen‘s model elaboration (2014) for understanding the concepts of elaboration, conjunctions, and lexical relations The chapter also pay attention to conjunctions and lexical relations as constrained by elaboration Chapter 3 explains the methods that have been used for analyzing data in this study It provides details of the research site and participants, as well as the procedures used for data collection and analysis Chapter 4 presents the results of analysis aimed at answering the two research questions These results are then discussed in relation to earlier studies on conjunctions and lexical relations Chapter 5 summarizes major research findings as well as the limitations, based on which it points out implications for teaching practice and further research on the topic of elaboration in EFL writing.
LITERATURE REVIEW
EXPOSITORY WRITING
This present study essentially deals with the text-forming relations, i.e., elaboration, conjunctions, and lexical relations Moreover, these relations are not general but particular to expository paragraphs For these reasons, it is important to determine what text-forming relations relate in the expository writing This aim is realized by reviewing the notion of expository genre, its features at the level of paragraph
The term genre refers to a type of discourse in a particular setting that has distinctive and recognizable organization and structure, and that has particular and distinctive communicative functions (Richards & Schmidt, 2010, p 245) Examples of genre include business reports, news broadcasts, letters, advertisements, etc From the Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) perspective, Martin (1992) defines genre as ―a staged, goal-oriented social process realized through register‖ (p 505) Hyland
(2009) explains that ―social processes because members of a culture interact to achieve them; goal-oriented because they have evolved to achieve things; and staged because meanings are made in steps, and it usually takes writers more than one step to reach their goals‖ (p 63) Hyland highlights that the SFL-oriented genre is significant in the field of language teaching
Biber (1989) proposes three expository categories on a linguistic basis, including scientific exposition, learned exposition, and general narrative exposition The author explained that all of these are expository since they feature highly informational density and noninvolved production However, general narrative exposition differs from the others in that it uses narration to convey information In addition, the narrative amount is neither imaginary nor entertaining; rather, it is an integral part of the expository information being conveyed Among the three types, general narrative exposition seems most relevant to the present study, in which writing tasks are general rather than technical or specific to a particular domain of subject matter, i.e., engineering or biology However, the study deals with cohesive relations between sentences, while Biber mainly focused on linguistic features at the sentence level Thus, Biber‘s notion of general narrative exposition is not compatible for purpose of the current study
Reid‘s (1982) provides an account of exposition that seems more compatible with Martin‘s definition of genre In terms of goal, exposition is used for explanation, as distinguished from persuasion (Reid, 1982, p 31) Staged may reflect in that the main goal of exposition is achieved in several steps Reid added that the goal of exposition is to present a viewpoint to the reader, which is then to be explained, clarified, and illustrated in the sub-goals The social aspect manifests in that exposition is written to present a viewpoint to an audience (Reid, 1982, p 99)
These features embody in Reid‘s account of exposition at the paragraph level The author mentions the paragraph consists of a topic sentence and a series of supporting sentences Topic sentence is the most general and important sentence in an academic paragraph (Reid, 1982, p 11), directing the focus of the paragraph that follows The sentence has a controlling idea that the following sentences will function on, i.e., to explain, define, clarify, and illustrate Reid (1982, p 12) further explains that ―a controlling idea is a word or phrase that can be asked questions about,‖ for example, how, why, in what ways or what it means
These paragraph features, though proposed a long time ago, still exert influence on EFL writing instructions, especially the present setting, whose paragraphs have following characteristics:
A paragraph should have one main idea
A paragraph should have more than one supporting idea
The first sentence of a paragraph should contain the main idea of the paragraph
The last sentence of a paragraph should contain the main idea of the paragraph
(Aish et al., 2016, p 13) Reid‘s account could be criticized for being too rigid The notion of topic sentence lends itself to the writer-responsible tradition, which means that it is the writer who is responsible for producing a text that will be coherent to the potential reader (Celce-Murcia & Oshtain, 2000, p 149) According to Allison, Varghese, and
Wu (1999), such a view of writing seems to be an imposition rather than a negotiation of meaning and discourse development However, despite holding reservations about topic sentence, the researchers agreed it is useful to help learner writers to become more aware of reader expectations for pedagogy Indeed, Reid (1996) argued that the account of expository paragraphs is highly beneficial for inexperienced EFL writers in learning academic writing and using topic sentences can help the learners to communicate effectively and efficiently
There have been numerous studies on cohesion relevant to EFL expository writing For instance, Zhang (2000) analyzed cohesive features in the expository writing of Chinese university students Adiantika (2015) investigated cohesive devices that EFL students used in expository writing and their contribution to the written products These studies had in common the neglect of features of expository paragraphs, including the relationship between the topic sentence and supporting sentences, and rhetorical functions the sentences serve Alarcon (2013) took a further step by attending to rhetorical functions of lexical relations; however, the considerations seemed more general than specific to the genre under scrutiny
Despite investigating cohesion in the expository genre, these studies largely neglected the features of expository paragraphs described so far in this section, whether its communicative functions or hierarchical unity They focused merely on how frequently cohesive devices were used, hardly addressing the relation of cohesion in the context of exposition Tanskanen (2006) analyzed the role of lexical cohesive relations in expository texts, showing that combining sentences which had an average or an above average number of cohesive units results in an intelligible summary As such, although Tanskanen dealt with expository texts, it had a very different purpose from this present study; moreover, her study on lexical relations was based on native speakers‘ data rather than EFL learners Likewise, Berzlanovich and Redeker (2012) were concerned with lexical relations aligned with the rhetorical structure of the expository genre The researchers found that the lexical resources are valuable clues to its organization However, since these focused on native speakers‘ data, it is not certain whether their findings apply to EFL writing or not
In conclusion, the text-forming relations in this study are not general but specific to a particular text type, that is, expository paragraphs Based on Reid‘s account, the relations necessarily relate the topic sentence with supporting sentences Despite being proposed a long time ago, Reid‘s account of expository paragraph turns out to be feasible for the purpose of this present study The features of expository paragraphs serve to specify the context in which elaboration as well as conjunctions and lexical relations are examined.
HALLIDAY AND MATTHIESSEN‘S MODEL OF ELABORATION
The term elaboration can be found in several studies on cohesion and coherence For example, Khalil (1990) attributed elaboration to informativeness, which was more relevant to content than cohesion On the other hand, elaboration is a subset of functional relations in Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) developed by Mann and Thomson (1988) Rhetorical structure is the underlying structure which accounts for the organization of a text or discourse (Richards & Schmidt, 2010) Different kinds of texts and discourse (e.g., stories, descriptions, letters, reports) are distinguished by the ways in which the topic, propositions, and other information are linked together to form a unit
RST elaboration is a type of functional relations between two parts of text The part that plays a dominant role is called nucleus; the other that plays a secondary role is called a satellite The satellite presents added details about the situation, or some element of subject matter presented in the nucleus or inferentially accessible in the nucleus The relatedness is recognizable in one or more of the ways listed below:
In the list, if the nucleus presents the first member of any pair, then the satellite includes the second By virtue of RST elaboration, the reader may recognize the situation presented in the satellite as providing additional detail for the nucleus The reader also identifies the element of subject matter for which detail is provided
As functional relations in texts, RST elaboration does not rely on linguistic realization for their identification (Mann & Thomson, 1988; Taboada & Mann, 2006)
A key challenge with RST (Rhetorical Structure Theory) is its inherently subjective approach to textual analysis, as highlighted by Taboada and Mann (2006), who argue that certain relations are "rarely or never signaled." While the language system lacks explicit signals for all relations—some relations are not identifiable through specific linguistic means—this limitation does not diminish the relevance of RST in the context of elaboration studies, which focus solely on certain relation types Additionally, bypassing linguistic signals can reduce the educational benefits of RST, emphasizing the importance of understanding how these relations are identified Hoey (1983, cited by Flowerdew, 2013) emphasizes that "discussion of types of relation cannot be sensibly carried on apart from the means whereby those relations are identified," underscoring the critical role of identification methods in analyzing textual coherence.
This study is based on the concept of expansion, which encompasses various logico-semantic relations described by Halliday and Matthiessen (2014) Expansion includes elaboration, extension, and enhancement, with elaboration being particularly significant for understanding expository paragraphs Elaboration involves expanding a primary clause by restating, specifying, commenting, or exemplifying, thus maintaining the hierarchical unity between the topic sentence and supporting sentences Unlike extension and enhancement, which may introduce digressions or qualify the main idea, elaboration helps preserve the core message and coherence of expository writing In particular, elaboration ensures that the main idea remains clear and that the paragraph’s unity is upheld, making it a crucial element for effective expository discourse.
Elaboration from RST and from Halliday and Matthiessen‘s model (2014) shares one thing in common Mann and Thompson (1988) assert that the meaning of RST elaboration deals with subject matter relations, which are for readers to recognize the relation under scrutiny Subject matter relations are distinct from presentational relations, which aim to increase some inclination in the reader, such as the desire to act or the degree of positive regard for, belief in, or acceptance of the dominant text part
Likewise, Halliday and Matthiessen‘s elaboration operates on experiential meaning, which corresponds to subject matter This could be traced back to the notion of logico-semantic relations Under the SFL systems, these logico-semantic relations belong to the ideational function of language, which is divided into experiential and logical meaning (Martin, 1992) Accordingly, the relations relate sequences of figures (or moves) that are presented as textually related messages (Halliday & Matthiessen,
2014, p 428) The experiential meaning expresses itself through the notion of thesis, which Halliday and Hassan (1976) refers to as the content of what being said, coinciding with experiential events coded in the text (p 239)
However, elaboration of Halliday and Matthiessen (2014) differs from that of RST in one important aspect RST elaboration is not tied to linguistic signals while Halliday and Matthiessen‘s elaborating relations are closely associated with linguistic resources for cohesion Elaborating relations are accompanied by conjunctions and lexical relations In this virtue, Halliday and Matthiessen‘s elaboration creates conditions for investigating the cohesive resources for the rhetorical relations in expository paragraphs
In Halliday and Matthiessen (2014), logico-semantic relations interact with the system of taxis, based on which elaboration is categorized into hypotactic and paratactic Hypotactic elaboration is a way of ―introducing into the discourse background information, a characterization, an interpretation of some aspect of the dominant clause, or some form of evaluation‖ (p 464) Hypotactic elaboration involves a special clausal construction – that of the non-defining relative clause, or finite clauses Although hypotactic elaboration may well relate two clauses, its boundary is limited to sentence rather than across the text At the same time, paratactic elaboration involves an ordinary clause without any special grammatical constraints Thus, the present study is more concerned with paratactic elaboration
Paratactic elaboration involves three further subcategories: exposition, exemplification, and clarification Exposition at this stage needs not to be confused with exposition as a genre expounded in 2.1 Elaborating exposition occurs when one clause restating the thesis of another in different words, to present it from another point of view This often involves repetition or synonymy For example, in ―Yeah, I just hate it; I just loathe it‖ (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p 463), the second clause exposes the first by the use of synonym loathe for hate Exposition finds itself equivalent to RST restatement , a functional relation proposed by Mann and
Thompson (1988) RST restatement involves a text segment restating another This relation has the effect that reader recognizes one sentence as a restatement of the other The authors provide the example:
Well-groomed car reflects its owner The car you drive says a lot about you Between the two sentences is a relation of restatement, in which the content in the first sentence is restated in the second one
Exemplification occurs when one clause develops the thesis of another by becoming more specific about it, often citing an actual example For example, in ―We used to have races– we used to have relays” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p 463), the latter clause serves as an example for the former with relays being a hyponym of races In clarification, one clause clarifies the thesis of another, backing it up with some form of explanation or explanatory comment Clarification may also be an evaluative comment or involves a shift in positive to negative For example, ―I wasn‘t surprised, – it was what I had expected‖ (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p 464), the latter clarifies the former with the use of expected as an antonym of surprised
In Halliday and Matthiessen‘s model of elaboration, exposition is accompanied by repetition, synonymy and exemplification is tied with hyponymy and meronymy While exposition and exemplification are associated with specific categories of lexical relations, clarification is not explicitly indicated in this regard The absence of lexical relations may indicate variations in how a clause can be clarified However, based on the authors‘ account on clarification and its examples, clues to antonymy can be recovered Clarification often involves a shift of polarity from positive to negative or vice versa In the example ‗they weren‘t show animals; we just had them as pets‘ (p
464), it is reasonable that the type of lexical relations most relevant to the shift of polarity is antonymy; for this reason, this study adds antonymy to the framework for clarification to make up for the lack of explicit involvement of antonymy in the original framework Overall, lexical relations involved in elaboration include repetition, synonymy, hyponymy, meronomy, and antonymy
CONJUNCTIVE RELATIONS FOR ELABORATION
In the classical model of cohesion (Halliday & Hasan, 1976), conjunctive and lexical relations were kept as independent categories of cohesion By contrast, under the framework of elaboration, the cohesive resources are closely aligned with each category of elaboration This section places the conjunctions back on its developments to determine their meaning and theoretical underpinnings Also, it surveys how the conjunctions have been investigated in EFL texts, especially for the expository genre
In the present study, conjunctions belong to the model of elaboration The term conjunction has also been known in different names, for example, connectives
(Crossley et al., 2016), connectors (Granger & Tyson, 1999), and transition signals (Oshima & Hogue, 2007) Familiar as they are in writing instruction, these terms seem inconsistent with the system of cohesion developed by Halliday and Hasan
(1976), hence not as preferable as conjunctions This section aims to expose characteristics of conjunctions by comparing Halliday and Hasan‘s classical model
(1976, Chapter 5) and Halliday and Matthiessen‘s model of elaboration (2014)
Overall, conjunctions have been approached in two opposing ways On the one hand, the meaning was considered as contained in itself (Christiansen, 2011, as cited in Flowerdew, 2013, p 38) This could be observed in studies that counted the frequencies of conjunctions Khalil (1990) investigated how frequently conjunctions EFL learners used as part of cohesion in written texts Similarly, Zhang (2000) counted the frequency of conjunctions as a measure for general cohesion As a result, it was likely that the conjunctions were treated in isolation without influence from textual environment On the other hand, conjunctions were viewed as relations of meaning between entities, which was based on the presence of conjunctive elements, (Taboada & Mann, 2006) Concha and Paratore (2011) adopted conjunctions as a means to investigate coherence relations in persuasive texts by Chilean students
Under the classical system of cohesion, conjunctions differ from other cohesive resources in that they specify the way in which ―what is to follow is systematically connected to what has gone before‖ (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 277) Accordingly, conjunction is a relation of meanings, manifesting in two regards First, the relation between meanings reflects in the content, language users‘ experience of external reality, hence called experiential or external meaning (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p
240) Second, the relation between meanings manifest itself in the sense that stands for the speaker‘s choice of speech role and rhetorical channel, his attitudes, his judgement and the like, thus called internal meaning
This internal/external distinction has been rarely addressed in studies on conjunctions in EFL writing For example, Johnson (1992) considered conjunction as cohesive without discerning their internal and external meanings, i.e., by its semantic relation between two events, two stages in an argument, or two continuous passages of a text The only exception that could be found is a study by Field and Lee (1992), who compared the use of internal conjunctions in texts by EFL and native speakers For the researchers, internal conjunctions occur when the writer uses a device to make a conscious juxtaposition of one point to another Martin (1992) warned that many of the same conjunctions can realize both internal and external relations Thus, problems may arise in deciding whether an internal or external interpretation is appropriate Georgakopoulou and Goutsos (2004, as cited in Flowerdew, 2013) argued that the strongest meaning of discourse markers is not ideational, but interpersonal For instance, y’know at the beginning of an utterance appears to indicate attitudinal meaning to what is being said
Dealing with the internal-external distinction of meaning, Martin (1992, p 226) suggests that a useful test for deciding on the proper meaning is to change the dependency relationship between the messages under scrutiny (by paraphrasing from hypotactic to paratactic or "cohesive" or vice versa) However, the author notices that despite the usefulness of the paraphrase test, it may be difficult to make the internal and external distinction of, for example, additive relations The reason is with these relations, the difference between constructing text and constructing field is not always clear-cut
The present study does not concern conjunctions in general but for elaboration, a set of logico-semantic relations, which pertain to experiential and logical meaning
(Martin, 1992) In line with elaboration, conjunctions are more concerned with experiential meaning than interpersonal meaning The experiential meaning of conjunctive relations manifests in the notion of thesis, the content of the event that is being said (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 239)
In conclusion, the classical conjunctions and elaborating conjunctions differ with respect to internal and external meaning In the classical version, meaning of conjunctions is mainly internal, though external meaning is possible In the elaborating conjunctions, external meaning seems more significant than internal meaning, which results from conscious juxtaposition of ideas (Field & Lee, 1992) Compared with the classical conjunctions, then, the expository and exemplifying conjunctions are no longer limited to internal communication process but linked to external reality as well
Originally, conjunctions under Halliday and Hasan‘s classical scheme (1976, p 238) include four categories: additive, adversative, causal, and temporal Meanwhile, elaborating conjunctions involve three categories: expository, clarification, and exemplification, whose origin is traced back to additive and adversative conjunctions in the classical scheme These two categories of conjunctions are discussed in more detail with comparison between the classical model and the elaborating scheme The classical additive relations (Halliday & Hasan, 1976) cover four sub-groups: simple, complex, comparative, and appositive Simple additive relations carry both external and internal meanings Typical expressions for simple additive relations include and, and or The relations can also be expressed negatively by, for example, nor, and neither Complex additive relations belong mainly to the internal plane The emphatic forms include furthermore, moreover, and besides that; The de-emphatic forms include incidentally, or by the way Comparative additive relations are mainly associated with internal meaning, which can be expressed by similarly, likewise, and by contrast The three categories are very common in text but are not focused on in the present study Instead, among the four categories, it is the appositive relations are the most relevant to elaborating conjunctions In the 1976 model, appositive relations are resources for realizing both internal meaning and external meaning Common expressions for these relations include in other words, to put it another way, and for example
Adversative conjunctions express a contrast to expectation, either derived from the content of the message or the communication process itself (Halliday & Hasan, 1976) They serve a dual purpose by providing both external and internal cohesion within a text Internally, these conjunctions indicate a deviation from what is expected based on the ongoing conversation or argument, often conveying a sense of “in spite of” or “despite” certain roles or conditions Common internal adversative markers include phrases like “in fact,” “as a matter of fact,” and “actually,” which assert that the reality or truth of the statement contrasts with what the current communication suggests, highlighting an unexpected or contrary conclusion.
Under the classical scheme, adversative relations include four categories: proper, dismissive, contrastive, and corrective Proper adversative relations encompass both internal and external meanings, which can be realized by common expressions such as yet, though, however, etc Dismissive adversative relations have the meaning where some circumstances are dismissed as irrelevant (p 254), which may be both external and internal Some common expressions for these relations include whichever happens, and whether … or not Similarly, contrastive relations belong to both external and internal planes The external meaning of these relations can be expressed by for example but, however, and at the same time The internal contrastive relations, which are also called avowal, mean ‗as against what the current state of the communication process would lead us to expect, the fact of the matter is …‘ (p 253) Avowal is realized by such expressions as in fact, actually, or as a matter of fact
Corrective relations are closely related to the avowal and also belong to the internal plane These relations can be signaled by instead, rather, or on the contrary
The original conjunctions have been investigated in numerous studies on cohesion in EFL writing Zhang (2000) investigated the number of conjunctions in expository texts by EFL university students The researcher reported that conjunction category accounted for 17.5% of the cohesive devices Zhang correlated frequencies of the conjunctions and the learners‘ writing quality Likewise, Tran (2011) adopted the same approach to the classical conjunctions and correlated conjunctions with writing quality Adiantika (2015) investigated the contribution of conjunctions to expository writing quality The researcher found that conjunctions occurred 181 times, the second most common type of cohesion in expository writing
Generally, these studies treated conjunctions as isolated items rather than a relation of meaning as Halliday and Hasan (1976) emphasized in the first place The conjunctive ties were often counted individually as a measure for cohesion For example, Johnson (1992) calculated that conjunctive ties under the syntactic ties rather than for their own right Zhang (2000) found that conjunctive ties in EFL texts were less common than lexical ties and more common than reference ties Among conjunctions, additive devices were the most common, followed by temporal, causal, adversative, and continuative (Liu & Braine, 2005) Approached as mere numbers, the conjunctions were no more than surface links whose meaning was contained in themselves, as if they existed independently from textual environment This approach made conjunctions analogous with the notion of text as an autonomous object, which can be described independently of context (Hyland, 2009, p 8)
As motivated by the elaborating framework and expository paragraphs, this study reserves the status of conjunctions as relations of meaning, as proposed by Halliday and Hasan (1976), not merely surface markers It follows that on the one hand, the conjunctions are based on conjunctive elements; on the other hand, they do not exist in themselves but closely related to a specific category of elaboration Such expressions as for example, for instance, and in particular may accompany the exemplifying elaboration For exposition, typical conjunctions include or (rather), in other words, that is to say or I mean; or, i.e Likewise, expressions such as in fact, actually, indeed, at least are commonly used for clarifying elaboration These conjunctions, thus, do not exist alone but are lined up with elaboration between a sentence and its precedent
LEXICAL RELATIONS FOR ELABORATION
Compared with conjunction, the lexical cohesive resources are reserved more space of discussion in this review chapter Lexical cohesive relations are particularly problematic (Tanskanen, 2006; Flowerdew, 2013) This section describes the nature of lexical relatedness, and the role of context, whereby to inform how they are analyzed in the present study
In general, the term lexical relation refers to semantic relations among word such as antonymy, synonymy, and hyponymy (Murphy, 2003) One alternative term adopted by semanticists is sense relation (Hurford, Heasley, & Smith, 2007, p 26) According to the authors, sense refers to relationships that are internal to the language system Adopting sense relation plausibly entails exclusion of reference, which refers to relationships between language and the world Indeed, Murphy (2003, p 11) argues that senses are not the only determining factor of lexical semantic relations Sense relation sound too narrow given the scope of the present study, which concerns lexical relations as cohesive devices in texts
Lexical relations in this study are a component of elaborating model described in 2.2 The term lexical relation is more systematically consistent with their origin from lexical cohesion (Halliday & Hasan, 1976) As part of cohesion, lexical relations are relations of meaning in texts Also, dealing with meaning, lexical relations are inclusive of both sense and reference rather than limited to either
Lexical relations are not only resources for cohesion but also for realizing elaboration Based on these constraints, this section searches for a taxonomy of lexical relations that best serve the purpose of the present study
In their classical work, Halliday and Hasan (1976) divided lexical cohesion into two categories: reiteration and collocation Reiteration involves repeating of a lexical item, or using a general word, synonym, a near-synonym, a superordinate (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p 278) Collocation, on the other hand, covers both systematic lexical relations and even unsystematic relations Systematic collocational relations include pairs of opposites like complementaries, antonyms, and converses, for example boys—girls, and stand up—sit down The group of opposites are from now on referred to as antonymy for better consistency with the terminology of elaboration Besides antonymy, collocational relations include pairs that stand in part to whole, and part to part relations, both of which are also called meronymy following Halliday and Matthiessen (2014) In addition, collocation also includes pairs that belong to hyponymy, he relations between groups of words all falling under one superordinate For example, apple, orange, banana, and lemon are all hyponyms of the superordinate fruit Besides systematic relations, Halliday and Hasan included under collocation relations that were difficult to describe in a systematic way, for example, laugh—joke, blade—sharp, garden—dig
Studies based on Halliday and Hasan's model emphasize the dominance of lexical relations as key cohesive resources Khalil (1990) highlighted that lexical relations constitute the largest proportion of cohesive devices in EFL texts Liu and Braine (2005) found that lexical devices represent the highest percentage among cohesive tools, surpassing references and conjunctives Similarly, Adiantika (2015) reported that lexical cohesion was the most frequently used device, with 322 occurrences across nine EFL writings.
Research indicates that EFL learners primarily rely on repetition as their main lexical device, with Liu and Braine (2005) identifying it as the most frequently used, followed by collocations, synonyms, and antonyms, highlighting limited lexical variety Similarly, Alarcon (2013) found that repetition (32.42%) and synonyms (31.64%) are the dominant lexical cohesion resources in EFL argumentative texts, while hyponyms and meronyms are rarely used, accounting for only 11.68% and 7.69%, respectively Overall, these studies demonstrate that lexical relations are underutilized, with significant reliance on repetition and limited variation among lexical choices in EFL writing.
Stotsky (1983) critiqued the classical model of lexical cohesion for lacking a consistent classification principle He proposed reorganizing lexical cohesion around systematic lexical relations, categorizing all recognizable systematic relations under reiteration and reserving unsystematic relations for collocation This revised approach closely resembles Tanskanen’s (2006) model of lexical cohesion, which is based on the same organizational principle Consequently, this section focuses more on Tanskanen’s recent model due to its foundational similarities and improved systematicity.
Tanskanen (2006) analyzed lexical cohesion as a key factor contributing to coherence across various text types, including expository writing, expanding on Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) model by including systematic semantic relations like synonymy, hyponymy, and antonymy within reiteration While Halliday and Hasan focused on repetition, synonym, superordinate, and general words, Tanskanen broadened this category to encompass grammatical cohesion devices such as pronouns Consequently, Tanskanen’s lexical reiteration comprises eight subcategories: simple repetition, complex substitution, equivalence, generalization, specification, and contrast Additionally, collocation in Tanskanen’s model involves unsystematic relations, including ordered sets, activity-related collocations, and elaborative collocations, enhancing the understanding of linguistic coherence in texts.
The key difference between Halliday and Hasan (1976) and Tanskanen (2006) lies in their terminology Tanskanen replaced "synonymy" with "equivalence" and "hyponymy" with "generalization," reflecting different conceptual approaches Additionally, Tanskanen used the term "contrast" instead of "antonymy" to describe the relationship between oppositely meaningful items Notably, meronymy was interpreted differently by Tanskanen compared to Halliday and Hasan, highlighting a variation in their understanding of these semantic relations.
Meronymy, unlike hyponymy, refers to the relationship between a general item and a more specific part or component While hyponymy goes from specific to general, meronymy progresses from a broad concept to its detailed parts, highlighting their opposite directional relationships.
Tanskanen highlighted that the terminology was chosen to bypass linguistic jargon and better reflect the specific context of discourse He emphasized that non-linguistic terms underscore the importance of understanding the relationship between lexical items within their textual environment, suggesting that justifications and explanations for these relations should be derived from the surrounding text.
This study focuses on the elaborating functions of lexical relations, emphasizing the importance of the relations themselves rather than their categorization into reiteration or collocation While Tanskanen’s proposed lexical relations are similar to Halliday and Hasan’s (1976), the key difference lies in how Tanskanen reorganized these relations However, for clarity and consistency, this research retains the original set of lexical relations from Halliday and Hasan’s model instead of adopting Tanskanen’s reorganization, to better analyze the elaborating functions of lexical relations.
Martin's (1992) taxonomy of lexical relations complements Halliday and Hasan’s model by offering a detailed classification based on two key sub-systems: superordination and composition These lexical relations play a crucial role in understanding how words and concepts are interconnected within language, enhancing semantic analysis and discourse coherence Incorporating this taxonomy into linguistic studies provides deeper insights into the structure of meaning and lexical organization, making it a valuable framework for semantic and discourse analysis.
Superordination is a concept based on taxonomies that utilize subclassification to categorize items, while composition relates to the organization of parts within a whole Both types of taxonomy are commonly used to structure people, places, things, and actions, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding relationships However, only superordination can effectively organize qualities, making it essential for distinguishing attributes beyond mere classification of objects or actions.
THE FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS IN THE PRESENT STUDY
This study aims to analyze conjunctive and lexical relations as key resources for elaboration in expository paragraphs Understanding the models of conjunctions and lexical relations is essential for effective writing, as these elements enhance coherence and clarity Conjunctive relations connect ideas logically, while lexical relations develop vocabulary to improve text cohesion Recognizing these patterns helps writers craft more cohesive and well-structured expository texts, ultimately improving clarity and reader comprehension.
Conjunctions in Halliday and Hasan (1976), Halliday and Matthiessen (2014), and the present study
Halliday and Hasan Halliday and Matthiessen
The present study mainly draws on the model of Halliday and Matthiessen
In 2014, research on the types of conjunctions highlighted that conjunctions not only serve an elaborative function but also interact with lexical relations It is important to note that modern conjunctions have a narrower scope compared to classical models, reflecting evolving linguistic patterns (See Table 2.2 for detailed classification.)
Lexical relations in Halliday and Hasan (1976), Tanskanen (2006), Martin (1992), Halliday and Matthiessen (2014), and the present study
This study finds no significant differences among models regarding lexical relations, except for Tanskanen’s unique terminology While Tanskanen’s non-linguistic terms, like "equivalence" for synonyms, are justified by his rationale, they are unnecessary for this research Conversely, Murphy (2003) employs traditional linguistic terminology when discussing lexical relations from a pragmatic perspective For clarity and consistency, this study adopts Halliday’s taxonomy of lexical relations, which aligns closely with elaborating relations and supports comprehensive analysis in linguistic research.
This study employs Halliday and Matthiessen’s categories of lexical relations to analyze elaboration, with Martin’s account providing clarity and consistency in understanding these relations However, to accommodate the lexical strategies used by EFL learners, the account is extended, particularly concerning hyponymy and meronymy, which often have blurred boundaries, especially with abstract terms Consequently, this research combines hyponymy and meronymy under the broader category of inclusion, as distinguishing between them is less relevant for examining elaboration techniques like exemplification.
SUMMARY
This chapter provides the account of expository paragraph that serves as context for investigating elaboration, conjunctive, and lexical relations Based on the account of expository paragraph, the review has concluded on Halliday and Matthiessen‘s model of elaboration The model informs the choice of conjunctions and lexical relations for analyzing EFL expository texts in the present study.
METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH DESIGN
The study aims to explore the use of conjunctive and lexical relations that accompany elaborating relationships in EFL expository paragraphs The aims are translated into two research questions, which are reiterated as follows:
1 What conjunctive relations are used for elaboration in expository paragraphs by intermediate-level EFL learners?
2 What lexical relations are used for elaboration in expository paragraphs by intermediate-level EFL learners?
Perhaps the best way to address the research questions is to analyze EFL learners‘ texts In general, there are two processes in which texts can be analyzed: top- down and bottom-up (Biber & Connor, 2007, p 13) With the top-down approach, the first step is to develop a framework for analyzing functional unit types Afterwards, texts are segmented into units that serve a particular communicative function This approach was adopted by such studies as Morley (2006), Tanskanen (2006), Bezlanovich and Redeker (2012) These studies started by settling on a certain genre such as expository writing or persuasive writing Based on pre-determined characteristics such as genre-specific organization or rhetorical functions, these researchers investigated the lexical relations
By contrast, in the bottom-up approach, texts are first automatically segmented into units The units are then analyzed for linguistic features and gathered into groups according to linguistic similarities Subsequently, the groupings are interpreted as discourse unit types by determining their typical functions in texts This approach seems to find itself in Alarcon (2013), which identified lexical relations before assigning functions to them
This present study investigated conjunctions and lexical relations for elaboration based on the expository paragraph including its structural and communicative features For this reason, it mainly employed the top-down approach; it also utilized bottom-up elements such as conjunctions and lexical during the analysis.
RESEARCH SITE
This study was conducted at a suburban English center in HCMC, which was a small- scaled center with only three teachers practicing the teaching profession The center offers three types of courses preparing EFL learners for IELTS, namely, ―IELTS Basic‖ (IB) for band 4.5, ―IELTS Improver‖ for band 6.0 and ―IELTS Advanced‖ for band 7.0 + Among these courses, IB courses are aimed at band 4.5 equivalent to B1 level of proficiency in Common European framework of reference for languages (CEFR), or intermediate level of proficiency This course tends to attract the largest number of learners, for which the study opted to target IB courses to obtain the possibly largest amount of data The IB course lasts for twelve weeks, based on the textbook Get Ready for IELTS (GRI) The writing component is covered in six out of twelve units, namely, units one, three, eight, ten, eleven and twelve The duration of a class meeting for expository writing depended on the teachers, lasting around 90 minutes
There were three reasons for choosing this center as the research site First, three years‘ time working for this center enabled the researcher to sense the problems of cohesion faced by the learners and thus motivated him to conduct the present study Secondly, the writing component of the syllabus was suitable for the study because it includes expository writing.
PARTICIPANTS
The participants in the present study were EFL learners attending three IB classes (IB1, IB2, and IB3) at the English center To investigate the cohesive resources for elaboration in expository texts, the sampling strategy for this study was comprehensive sampling
Comprehensive sampling was used as this strategy allows every unit to be included in the sample (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, & Razavieh, 2010, p 429) At the time this study was being conducted, the available population was rather limited, including three IB classes for intermediate-level learners suitable for the research purpose Comprehensive sampling was utilized so that the researcher could select every participant in the population to join the sample
The sampling procedure resulted in a total of 39 participants from three IB classes: IB1 (12 students), IB2 (12 students), and IB3 (15 students) These included
15 males and 24 females aged from 16 to 27 Although the age range was quite considerable, a majority of the participants were university students (20 over 39) Apart from age, the participants shared the background of learning English as non-English majors The information had a major implication for interpreting their use of lexical relations in writing Unlike English majors who have likely gone through in- depth instruction on semantics, the non-English majors‘ exposure to lexical relations was mostly limited to the lessons covered in the textbook GRI However, the learning experience should not mean that they could not produce a text that contain lexical relations This is analogous to the situation where a native speaker who never study the subject of semantics does not mean lexical relations cannot be found in his or her writing The learners may be unconscious of using lexical relations in writing, but these may still be present in their texts anyway.
ETHICS
According to Creswell (2012, p 620), ethical issues in research involve informing participants the research purpose, respecting the research site, maintaining confidentiality and so on In the present study, these ethical issues were put into consideration
First, the aims of administrating the writing task were two-fold It was part of assessment practice at the English center For this reason, the test occasion could avoid disturbing the site as little as possible Also, the administration posed no risks to the amount of instructional time or any resources of the learners as well as the language center Second, ethical issues were ensured by respecting the research site and the participants Given the descriptive nature of the present study, it seems unnecessary for the researcher to seek for a detailed review from the head of the center; instead, the researcher only asked the manager for permission to collect data for the research project Regarding the learner participants, a consent form (see Appendix A) was composed and handed to the participants when the papers were returned to them In this form, it was made clear that the learners were not pressured into signing consent forms It disclosed the purpose of the study to participants, the issues of data confidentiality, and anonymity of the participants.
WRITING TASK
The present study adopted a writing task to elicit the use of conjunctions as well as lexical relations by the EFL learners at the research site Two issues were taken into account for designing the writing task First, the task was designed to elicit writing expository paragraph, the context from which the research problem emerged Second, it was intended to fit the learners‘ proficiency level as well as their background of learning English The writing task was worded as follows:
You should spend 45 minutes on this task
It is good for children to follow their parents' advice all the time Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Write a paragraph (at least 80 words) to give your opinion and include reasons and any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience
*Good: having a useful or helpful effect on somebody/something (Adapted from Aish et al., 2016, p 15) The writing task required the participants to write a single paragraph instead of a whole essay Each paragraph allows for a central idea and elaboration for it Also, since good is associated with multiple meanings, the task included a specified meaning of good (Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary) to help the participants to respond to the prompt
The topic was selected from the first unit that the participants had learned two months before They learned relevant ideas through listening and reading but did not write on this task This choice of topic was intended to be familiar with the students‘ knowledge of content and vocabulary so that the participants would not have difficulties getting ideas for writing about it; otherwise, the task would be more a test of world knowledge than language knowledge The wording of the task was in English but familiar to the participants since it followed similar writing tasks in their textbook GRI
The amount of time allowed for this task was 45 minutes, which was longer than usual for writing a paragraph, but it was intended so for the participants not to feel under pressure of time This time was assumed to enable them to feel comfortable to write and follow the writing process they had learned until then, including planning, writing, revising, and editing The idea behind the writing task was that it aimed to elicit the use of elaboration in expository in as much natural a setting as possible For this reason, the participants were asked to respond as if it was a usual class assignment.
PROCEDURE OF DATA COLLECTION
The writing task was administered in the classroom at the end of the eighth week of each IB course, after the participants had learned eight units The schedule of administrating the writing task depended on each IB class By the time the task was administered, the participants were supposed to be familiar with the topic, and features of expository paragraphs such as hierarchical structure, and conjunctions This was important for the research focus not to be affected by lack of topical knowledge, and vocabulary The scheduled test also allowed the researcher enough time to prepare the scripts for analysis and asking for consent
The 45-minute writing test was first administered to the test takers They were asked to write an expository paragraph of at least 80 words at one sitting and under the same conditions 80 words was the usual length of a paragraph the participants practiced during the course The test was also organized with care to minimize possible interference with the data collection Since part of the data for the present study was obtained right at the classes of the researcher, he postponed mentioning that the students‘ papers would be used for research purpose until later Instead, their writing would be used for informing their progress, which was also the purpose of the writing test as part of the course syllabus The researcher also reminded the other teacher to do the same Therefore, it was unlikely that students deliberately used lexical relations and elaboration as a way to show the researcher that they did understand and could use cohesive relations and elaboration Only after the participants received back their papers did the researcher inform them of the research purpose and ask for their permission to use their data
After being collected, the papers were taken photos of and typed onto Microsoft Word because all of the writings were supposed to be returned to the students Each of the papers was then labeled IB1, IB2, …, and IB35 Words were counted after the preliminary treatment of mistakes took place The numbers were then transported to an Excel spreadsheet for later statistical procedure Afterwards, all of these writings were analyzed to find out how students used elaboration and conjunctions and lexical relations in the students‘ texts.
DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
After the papers were collected and labeled, three papers were found too short (56, 63, and 67 words) to provide desirable data Apart from shortness, the analyst also encountered one paper that was difficult to understand and thus decided to exclude them from the analysis Excluding these four papers left 35 ones for the analysis After the students‘ papers were typed on Microsoft Word 2010, grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors were processed with care so that the learners‘ intentions and meanings would not be distorted The students‘ works were now ready for analysis The overall procedure of data analysis consisted of five stages, which are illustrated in Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1 Procedure of data analysis
Since the analysis was based on written data, the preferred unit was sentence (Tanskanen, 2006) The term sentence in this study follows Halliday and Matthiessen
(2014, p 7) to consist of one or more clauses Formally, a sentence begins with a capitalized letter and ends with a punctuation mark, for example a full stop, or a question mark In expository paragraphs, besides elaboration, it is possible that other types of functional relations are present, for example, causal relations, or temporal relations For this reason, when one sentence obviously served two different functions, it was then labeled as two segments for the most clarity, as in the following:
It is good for children to ask and listen to their parents‘ advice because parents are those who have gone through the same time as their children, they know that there are some obstacles in several specific stages
This segment, on surface, is equivalent to an orthographic sentence but it plausibly serves two distinct functions While it is good … advice repeats the prompt, the rest of the sentence plausibly gives reason for the prompt Therefore, this sentence was considered as two distinct functional segments Following McCarthy (1991, p 28), textual segment refers to segmented bits of text to avoid confusion with grammatical elements and syntactic relations within clauses and sentences By contrast, when two or more entered a single functional unit, they were counted as one single segment
In the context of expository paragraph, elaboration is supposed to relate the topic sentence and another sentence, so it was important for the analysis to identify the topic sentence As mentioned by Reid (1982), the topic sentences necessarily contains the most general and important idea in the expository paragraph This step made the current study distinct from other similar studies (Adiantika, 2015; Alarcon, 2013; Zhang, 2000), which tended to ignore the feature of controlling idea, and thus seemed to count any semantic links across texts
The analyst started by skim-reading to get a whole sense of each paragraph, which was likely to lead to two circumstances One agreed with the prompt given by the writing task (Table 3.2); the other was against the prompt In the first circumstance, the prompt itself was made the topic sentence for the paragraph In the second case, the opposite of the prompt took the role of the most important sentence For example, in the paragraph below:
(1) It is good for children to ask and listen to their parents‘ advice (2) As parents are those who have gone through the same time as their children, they know that there are some obstacles in several specific stages (3) For example, because of the typical of age, teenagers are not mature enough to understand about majors in college or university would be suitable for them (4) Parent‘s advice plays an important role to lead them in a correct way (5) As a result, parents‘ advice often bring orientation and have positive effects on their children (6) This allows young people to avoid their mistakes on the way to success
In this paragraph, the whole meaning plausibly agreed with the prompt It is good for children to follow parents’ advice, which was thus chosen as the topic sentence
Certainly, the topic sentence may well lie inside the paragraph Provided the topic sentence was explicit, it was not difficult to decide As in the above paragraph, sentence 1 could be seen as the topic sentence since it obviously contains the most general idea However, there were paragraphs from which it was difficult to pick a ready topic sentence because it was either implicit or confusing to the analyst This dilemma required careful considerations so that the analysis was consistent among all the papers However, topic sentences might well be implicit If this was the case, the analyst referred to the prompt to decide on the topic sentence This could be illustrated in the following paragraph:
(1) Children always agree with their parents‘ advice, which may make them lazier and lazier to think how to solve their problem (2) This is because they will think they just can ask parents for advice and do not need to think about their troubles (3) As a result, they are always dependent on parents (4) In addition, if children always take their parents advice, they might regret because except them, no one knows what is suitable for themselves (5) An illustration for this is the career choice which is one of the most important decision in life (6) If young people follow their parents‘ decisions, they might be stressed because they do not do the job they like and they wanted to begin again (7) So the children should be independent of parents when they need to make any decisions
In this paragraph, it was hard to spot a topic sentence that contains the most general idea, but skim-reading could provide a whole sense that disagreed with the prompt Therefore, the analyst devised the statement that opposed the idea in the prompt: It is not good for children to follow parents’ advice all the time This statement was then considered as the topic sentence for IB31 Although not good can be replaced by bad, the analyst decided not to include bad because this replacement would affect the analysis of lexical relations later
As this study described lexical relations based on topic sentence, the problem with this treatment is that it would lead to uneven-handed analysis of lexical relations Assigning the role of topic sentence to the prompt means that the lexical relations were based on the prompt Such a treatment would lack even-handedness with explicit topic sentences Therefore, both implicit and explicit topic sentences were treated in the same way to ensure even-handedness throughout the analysis If the topic sentences agreed with the prompt, the prompt was assigned the role of topic sentence For those which did not agree, the statement opposing the prompt would be considered the topic sentence instead
The current study clarifies that a well-structured paragraph does not necessarily require an explicit topic sentence at the beginning Instead, analysts carefully skim-read the text to assess whether the entire paragraph aligns with the prompt This approach emphasizes the importance of understanding the overall coherence and relevance of a paragraph, rather than relying solely on a specific sentence placement Proper paragraph analysis enhances content clarity and SEO by ensuring that each paragraph presents a cohesive idea aligned with the topic.
Elaboration in expository writing involves developing the content of a topic sentence through supporting sentences that maintain textual unity and coherence To effectively elaborate a topic sentence, both controlling ideas and topical elements must be related, ensuring relevance and avoiding irrelevant details The topical element acts as a trigger to help identify whether a supporting sentence elaborates on the main idea, especially when the topical element is not explicitly stated For instance, in the sentence "Indeed, they may lose chances to develop themselves," the immediate topic "parents" is not explicitly mentioned, but contextually it remains relevant to the preceding sentence, illustrating how triggers can assist in connecting supporting sentences to the main topic This understanding of elaboration emphasizes the importance of clear topical relations for cohesive expository paragraphs optimized for SEO.
Elaborating segments were identified using both top-down and bottom-up clues, such as content and conjunctions The analyst focused on the topic sentence from phase 2 to develop diagnostic questions for each segment For example, if the topic sentence was "it is good for children to follow," the questions would assess whether the content discusses following parents' advice or the effects of children following their parents' guidance This approach ensures accurate segmentation and enhances clarity in the analytical process.
The questions focused on the denotative meaning of "good," as specified in the writing task, highlighting its relevance in most communicative contexts (Murphy, 2003) This understanding is particularly important in the expository genre, where precise meaning facilitates clear communication (Biber, 1989) The researcher then analyzed the segment under scrutiny to find answers to the diagnostic questions, aiming to assess the use of denotative meaning in the text.
INTER-RATER RELIABILITY
Reliability, as defined by Howitt and Cramer (2000), refers to the consistency of measurements over time or across different measures of the same attribute In this study, inter-rater reliability was emphasized when multiple raters assessed the presence of specific characteristics While four features were examined, the primary focus for reliability analysis was on elaboration and lexical relations rather than topic sentences and conjunctions Ensuring high reliability in these areas is crucial for the accuracy and validity of the study's findings.
Deciding on topic sentences and conjunctions was manageable in this study While topic sentences required some subjective interpretation, the detailed procedure outlined in section 3.7.1 ensured that the selected topic sentences accurately conveyed the main ideas of each paragraph Conjunctions were also easy to identify, and minor spelling mistakes did not significantly hinder comprehension or interpretation.
To ensure reliability in coding elaboration and lexical relations, at least two trained coders, including the researcher and a colleague with a Master’s degree in TESOL familiar with the research setting, independently identified elaborating segments in the database, following Polio (2012) recommendations The second analyst was thoroughly briefed on the coding process, particularly regarding lexical relations, to maintain consistency Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha in SPSS IBM 26, and any discrepancies between coders were resolved through discussion, either by compromise or elimination, to ensure accurate identification of elaboration and lexical relations in the data.
The researcher conducted the analysis of lexical relations independently, acknowledging that Tanskanen (2006) highlights the inherent subjectivity in such analyses To enhance objectivity, the researcher relied on elaborated segments from Phase 3 and specific diagnostic questions, which improved the accuracy of the classification Additionally, a reference table of lexical relations was created to ensure coding consistency throughout the process, and this table is included in Appendix D.
SUMMARY
This chapter details the research methodology, including the methods used for data collection and analysis It provides essential information about the research site and participants, outlining the procedures followed to ensure accurate and reliable data Emphasizing the importance of reliability, the analysis was conducted to minimize subjective interpretation and ensure the credibility of the study's findings.