Article Sidebar

Download
pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 564 Download : 511

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

The notion of “textuality” encouraged Halliday and Hasan in 1976 to present their model of discourse analysis through raising questions about whether “cohesion” was a semantic concept or a structural relation, whether a text was a structural unit or not or even if there were semantic or structural relationships within a text. Cohesion was like the glue that unified the meaning within a text through binding the textual elements. Tackling relations of meaning and references in a text was often related to cohesion. A text can be cohesive if its units were bound together with explicit or implicit relations. Cohesion was often defined as the network of lexical, grammatical, and other relations which provide links between various parts of a text. The units of a cohesive text were not just a random set of sentences. Writing section on IELTS was commonly considered one of the most difficult parts of test. The test takers cannot even understand what to do with the tasks provided. They eventually wrote without knowing the expected direction. Therefore, there should be a fast way to equip students well to successfully cope with such hindrances. This research was an action research report of 10 students to make them better understand and answer writing tasks on IELTS test by employing probing techniques as one of test taking strategies. As the result, teaching material about cohesive devices, according to criteria and references to IELTS writing task 2, could help students to understand of their logic on writing proper materials.

Keywords

cohesive ties EFL writing task IELTS exam lexical cohesion

Article Details

How to Cite
Marashi, S. M. (2021). Impact of Teaching Cohesive Devices to Iranian EFL learners: Case of IELTS writing task 2 examination. JL3T (Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching), 6(2), 115-126. https://doi.org/10.32505/jl3t.v6i2.2050

References

  1. Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Bacha, N. N. C., & Hanania, E. (1980). Transitional words: A guide for students of English. The American University of Beirut.
  3. Bridges, G., & Shaw, S. D. (2004). IELTS writing: Revising assessment criteria and scales (phase 4). Research Notes, 18, 8-12.
  4. Castro, C. D. (2004). Cohesion and the social construction of meaning in the essays of Filipino college students writing in L2 English. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 215.
  5. Chapman, J. (1983). Cohesion: an overview for the teacher of reading. Australian Journal of Reading, 6(1), 5.
  6. Chapman, L. J. (1983). Reading development and cohesion. Heinemann Educational Books Inc., 70 Court St., Portsmouth, NH 03801.
  7. Chia-Yin, C. (1991). A Training Program for EFL Teachers of Private Language Centers in Taiwan, ROC (Doctoral dissertation, California State University, Chico).
  8. Christie, F., & Martin, J. R. (1997). Genre and institutions. London: Continuum.
  9. Clapham, C. (1993). Is ESP testing justified? A new decade of language testing research, 257-271.
  10. Crewe, W. J. (1990). The illogic of logical connectives. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.316
  11. De Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. U. (1981). Einführung in die Textlinguistik (Vol. 28). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  12. Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing languages for specific purposes. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
  13. Fine, S. B., Cohen, C.,Greenberg, L., Larson, K., Michaelson-Baily, A., Rubinton, P., & Glick, I. D. (1988). An interdisciplinary psychoeducation program for schizophrenic patients and their families in an acute care setting. Psychiatric Services, 39(3), 277-282.
  14. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1997). The writing course. Beyond Methods: Components of Second Language Education, 172-197.
  15. Gutwinski, W. (1976). Cohesion in literary texts: A study of some grammatical and lexical Features. The Hague: Mouton.
  16. Halliday, M. A. (1978). Language as social semiotics.
  17. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). Spoken and written modes of meaning. Media Texts: Authors and readers, 7, 51-73.
  18. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
  19. Halliday, M. A., & Hassan, R. (1976). Coherence in English.
  20. Handbook, I. E. L. T. S. (2007). Cambridge, UK: the University of Cambridge, Local Examinations Syndicate
  21. Hartnett, C. G. (1986). Static and dynamic cohesion: signals of thinking in writing. Functional Approaches to Writing. Research Perspectives, London: Frances Pinter.
  22. Hartnett, C. G. (1989). Clues to Mode of Discourse.
  23. Hassan, H. R., & Halliday, M. (1976). Cohesion in English. P20.
  24. Hawkey, R., & Barker, F. (2004). Developing a common scale for the assessment of writing. Assessing Writing, 9(2), 122-159.
  25. Hawkins, W. E. (1977). U.S. Patent No. 4,005,566. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
  26. Jafarpur, A. (1991). Cohesiveness as a basis for evaluating compositions. System, 19(4), 459-465.
  27. Johns, G. (1981). Difference score measures of organizational behavior variables: A critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27(3), 443-463.
  28. Johnson, K. E. (1992). Learning to teach: Instructional actions and decisions of preservice ESL teachers. Tesol Quarterly, 26(3), 507-535.
  29. Kaplan, R. B. (1967). Contrastive rhetoric and the teaching of composition. TESOL quarterly, 1(4), 10-16.
  30. Kuo, H. J. (1995). The (In) Appropiateness and (In) effectiveness of importing communicative language teaching to taiwan. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in English as a Second Language 13 (2).
  31. Lee, J. S. (2002). The Korean language in America: The role of cultural identity in heritage language learning. Language culture and curriculum, 15(2), 117-133. . https://doi.org/10.1080/07908310208666638
  32. Majdeddin, K. (2010). Cohesive devices in students' IELTS writing tasks. International Journal of Language Studies, 4(2).
  33. Martin, J. R. (1983). Conjunction: the logic of English text. Micro and macro connexity of texts, 45, 1-72.
  34. Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. John Benjamins Publishing.
  35. Munby, J. (1978). 1978: Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  36. Nelson, K., & Levy, E. (1987). Development of referential cohesion in a child's monologues. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.lt2.
  37. Olatunde, J. A. (2002). Cohesion as an aspect of textuality in vacancy advertisement’in newspapers. Language meaning and Society. Ilorin: A-Hee Press and Publishing, 312-313.
  38. Olson, M. W., and Johnson, S. (1985). Text type and reader ability: The effects on paraphrase and text-based inference questions. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17(3), 199-214.
  39. Pappas, C. C. (1987). The role of “typicality” in reading comprehension. Understanding readers' understanding: Theory and practice, 129-145.
  40. Rochester, S., and Martin, J. (1979). Crazy Talk: A study of the discourse of schizophrenia speakers. New York: Plenum Press.
  41. Tangkiengsirisin, S. (2010). Promoting cohesion in EFL expository writing: A study of graduate students in Thailand. International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 3(16), 1-34.
  42. Taylor, L., & Weir, C. J. (Eds.). (2012). IELTS collected papers 2: Research in reading and listening assessment (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.
  43. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
  44. Yang, A. W. (1989). Cohesive chains and writing quality. Word, 40(1-2), 235-254.
  45. Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 165-188.
  46. Zhang, L. J. (2000). Uncovering Chinese ESL students’ reading anxiety in a study-abroad context. Asia Pacific Journal of language in education, 3(2), 31-56.