Substitution as a Device of Grammatical Cohesion in English Contexts

Document Type: Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of ELT, Iranshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iranshahr, Iran

2 Department of English Language and Literature, Ahar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahar, Iran

3 Department of ELT, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kohgiluyeh and Boyer- Ahmad, Iran

Abstract

The present study set out to investigate the effect of teaching substitution as a kind of grammatical cohesion on the true identification of confusing substitution elements with cohesive or non-cohesive roles in different contexts and also the production of modal, reporting and conditional contexts through clausal substitution acquaintance. To this end, the following procedures were taken. First 120 male and female EFL students were selected from Iranshahr Azad University. Having administered the language proficiency test, researchers selected 80 students as intermediate subjects according to their TOEFL band scores. First, pretests of cohesion identification (substitution) and production of modal, reporting and conditional environments were administered to both control and experimental groups. Then, the experimental group was exposed to the teaching of the above-said above-mentioned cohesive device. Finally, post-tests of substitution elements’ identification and modal, reporting and conditional contexts’ production through clausal substitution familiarity were administered. The results showed that cohesive device treatment helped students on the true identification of substitution elements. Another finding proved that EFL students might have no difficulty in learning certain rules or classification of rules and application of their clausal substitution knowledge in creating modal, reporting and conditional contexts. Our findings can have implications for the field of language learning and teaching.

Keywords


Al-Jarf, R. S. (2001). Processing of Cohesive Ties by EFL Arab College Students. Foreign language Annals, 34, 141–150.

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University press.

Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University press.

Cain, K. (2003). Text Comprehension and its Relation to Coherence and Cohesion inChildren's' Fictional Narratives. British journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 335-351.

Camiciottoli, B. C. (2003). Metadiscourse and ESP Reading Comprehension: An Explanatory study. Reading in a foreign language, 15, 123- 136.

Chu, J., Swaffer, J., & Charney, D. (2002). Cultural Representations of Rhetorical Conventions: The Effect on Reading Recall. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 479- 478.

Chung, J.S. (2000). Signals and Reading Comprehension- Theory and Practice. System, 28,   247-259.

Demel, M. C. (1990). The Relationship Between Overall Reading Comprehension and Comprehension of Coreferential Ties for Second Language Readers of English. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 233- 253.

Gascoigne, C. (2005). Toward an Understanding of the Relationship Between L2 Reading Comprehension and Grammatical Competence. The Reading Matrix, 5, 128- 142.

Gullberg, M. (2006).  Handling Discourse: Gestures, Reference Tracking, and Communication Strategies In Early L2. Language Learning, 56, 155-196.

Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Louwerse, M. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2005). Coherence in Discourse. Encyclopedia of Linguistics, 6, 216-218.

Lubleska, D. (1991). An Approach to Teaching Cohesion to Improve Reading. College of St. Mark and St. John. Reading in a foreign language, 7, 245- 264.

Martinez, A. (2002). The Use of Discourse Markers in E.F.L. Learners' Writing. Revista

      Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 15, 110-121.   

McNamara, D.S., Louwerse, M.M., & Graesser, A.C. (unpublished). Coh-Metrix: Automated cohesion and coherence scores to predict text readability and facilitate comprehension. Grant proposal.

Mojica, L. A. (2006).  Reiteration in ESL Learners’ Academic Papers: Do they contribute to Lexical Cohesiveness? The Asia-Pacific Education Research, 15, 105- 125.

Moreno, A.I. (2003). The role of cohesive devices as textual constraints on relevance: A discourse-as-process view. International Journal of English Studies 3, 111-165.

Mu, C. (2006). An Explanatory study of Chinese University students' English Textual Competence. Sino-Us English teaching, 3, 124- 231.

O'Reilly, T., & Mc Namara, D.S. (2007). Revising the Reverse Cohesion Effect: Good Texts Can be Better for Strategic, High-knowledge Readers. Discourse processes, 43, 121-152.

Pandian, A., & Assadi, N. (2010). The ABC's Of Functional Grammar. Oxford Fajar.

Querol, M. Substitution as a Device of Grammatical Cohesion in English Narrative and its Translation into Spanish. Retrieved January, 30, 2012, from

Ozono, S., & Ito, H. (2003). Logical Connectives as Catalysts for Interactive L2 Reading. System, 34, 283-297.

Radford, A. (2004). English Syntax: an introduction. Cambridge, UK:  Cambridge University Press.

Rapp, D. N., Broek, P., Mc master, K. L., Kendou, P., & Espin, C. A. (2007) Higher-Order Comprehension Processes in Struggling Readers : A Perspective forResearch and  Intervention. Scientific studies of reading, 1, 289-312.

Taboada, Maite. (2000). Cohesion as a measure in generic analysis. Vancouver, Canada. Retrieved January, 30, 2012, from

Taboada, M., & Mann, W. C. (2006). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking Back and Moving Ahead. SAGE publications, 8, 423-459.

Yeh, Ch. (2004). The Relationship of Cohesion and Coherence: A Contrastive Study of English and Chinese. Journal of language and linguistics, 3, 130- 156.