http://www.sinoss.net

- 1 -

不同语言水平学习者议论文中衔接机制使用研究

许红美 刘晓玲

（湖南大学，湖南省、长沙市，410082）

摘要：议论文写作是提高学生语言表达能力的一种重要手段，严密的逻辑性和良好的连贯性是它的重

要特征，而议论文衔接的优劣是议论文逻辑严密性和语句连贯性的一个评判标准。议论文中的衔接机制使

用情况能客观反映学生写作水平，因此对议论文中的衔接机制展开研究非常有必要。

本研究选取湖南大学非英语专业的 119 名大二学生为对象，依据他们的大学英语四级成绩分成高低水

平组，高水平组由总分排名前 30 的同学组成，低水平组则由总分排名后 30 的同学组成。本研究以每个研

究对象写的同一标题的议论文为样本，依据英语四级作文评分标准对样本进行评分，随之基于韩礼德和哈

桑的衔接机制分类对样本的衔接机制使用情况进行深入研究。研究主要从议论文中衔接机制的总体使用情

况与高低水平两组学生的议论文衔接机制使用两个方面具体展开。通过对数据的收集与分析，最终得出以

下结论：

1. 照应在议论文中使用最频繁，连接和词汇衔接次之，而替代和省略使用极少；

2.学生的语言水平与他们对衔接机制的运用能力呈正相关，高低水平两组学生对照应、连接和词汇衔

接的运用差异明显。

尽管本文选取的研究对象有限、样本数量较少，但在议论文衔接机制方面的研究成果对写作教学具有

一定的指导意义。教师在课堂中应重视对衔接机制的教学，激发学生正确使用各种衔接机制。学生需扩大

词汇量，应用更多的词汇衔接，尤其是近义词和反义词，使文章表达更生动具体。

关键词：不同语言水平学习者；衔接机制；议论文写作；连贯

中图分类号： H0 文献标识码：A

1 Introduction

In this chapter, the background, purpose and significance of this study are mainly introduced

1.1 Background of the Study

Writing is more important than other skills in communication with foreigners, as not everyone has

the opportunity to talk with foreigners face to face. In today’s world, the Internet is becoming an

important channel of communication. If our country has many netizens who can post articles to blog and

micro-blog in English, we can turn the situation around where international English network media can’t

hear anything about China (Wang Shouren, 2011). Writing is one of the basic skills that must be

possessed by second language learners. In the process of second language learning, a good command

of writing skill is widely considered to be a method to improve the accuracy of grammar and vocabulary.

According to Huang Yuanshen (2002), writing as an effective way of testing one’s ability to think and

create, plays a major role in strengthening students’ ability to express ideas and thoughts. So teaching

of writing has been put much attention to by numerous linguists and teachers.

http://www.sinoss.net

- 2 -

Furthermore, argumentation, narration, description and exposition are regarded as four text types.

The reason why argumentation is chosen as the type of writing to be analyzed in this study is that it

more focuses on the rational and logical appeal and it is also employed in various tests both at home

and abroad such as CET-4, CET-6 and TOEFL. Second language learners have difficulty in producing a

well-organized and coherent argumentative essay. Besides, Ferretti et al. (2007) and Gleason (1999)

have affirmed that argumentation is the hardest model to write in comparison with other three models of

writings. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out a study on cohesion in argumentative writing. Under the

condition, This study intends to investigate the use of cohesive devices in argumentative essays written

by learners at different language proficiency levels.

1.2 Purpose and Significance of the Study

This study is conducted to analyze the use of cohesive devices in college students’ argumentative

writing. Hoping more helpful implication and suggestions for argumentative writing can be given on

actual writing teaching. There are four purposes for my selection of the study. The first and foremost

purpose is to investigate the cohesive devices used in Chinese college students’ English argumentative

writing from the perspective of Halliday and Hasan’s cohesion theory. The second purpose for carrying

out the study is to find out whether there exists difference of using cohesive devices across different

proficiency levels. For teachers, this study hopes to assist them in the teaching of how to write an

integrated, logic and coherent composition. For learners, they can be more aware of the importance of

cohesive devices and acquire cohesive devices and use them effectively.

2 Literature Review

In this chapter, the first part introduces one theory that acts as the theoretical background for this

study, which is Halliday and Hasan’s cohesion theory. Cohesion is the grammatical and lexical linking

within a text or sentence that holds a text together and gives it meaning. It is related to the broader

concept of coherence. There are two main types of cohesion: grammatical cohesion which is based on

structural content, and lexical cohesion which is based on lexical content and background knowledge.

The second part mainly introduces the research on cohesive devices and language proficiency levels at

home and abroad.

2.1 Cohesion Theory by Halliday and Hasan

One theory is used to lay the foundation for the study. It is cohesion theory, whose details are

presented and discussed in this part.

Cohesion was first developed in detail by Jakoboson (1960). He suggested that literary text has

cohesion or internal patterning and repetition. It was defined by Gutwinski (1976) as the relations

http://www.sinoss.net

- 3 -

obtaining among the sentences and clauses in a text. Leech (1969) said that cohesion is the way in

which independent choices in different points of a text correspond with or presuppose one another,

forming a network of sequential relations. But the publication of Halliday and Hasan’s book Cohesion in

English) (1976) marked the establishment of cohesion theory. As defined by Halliday and Hasan

(2001:4) “ it refers to relations of meaning that exist within the text, and define it as a text”. It was widely

used until the publishing of Cohesion in English. Halliday and Hasan thought that cohesion is a semantic

concept, a kind of semantic relation. However it is realized through a lexico-grammatical system. Some

researchers have redefined the concept of cohesion constantly. Many scholars have made great

contribution to the development of cohesion theory. Miao Xingwei (1998) gave the definition that it is the

relation between items in a text, especially those surface-structure features which link different elements

of a text. Baker (1992:81) said that cohesion is the links between various parts of a text supported by

the network of lexical, grammatical and other relations. Hoey (1991:12) defined cohesion as the way

certain words or grammatical features of a sentence to its predecessors in the text in his book Patterns

of Lexis in Texts.

Although different linguists have different definitions of cohesion in order to meet the empirical

research requirement, they basically share the similar opinion about the concept of cohesion. It is the

linking that holds a text together grammatically and lexically. Moreover, they all agreed that cohesion is

a necessary condition to create a coherent text. As Halliday and Hasan’s interpretation of cohesion is

powerful and its authority has been widely recognized, cohesion theory by Halliday and Hasan is used

as the theoretical basis in this study.

2.2 Cohesive Devices and Language Proficiency Levels

The second part mainly reviews researches on cohesive devices and language proficiency levels at

home and abroad.

With the appearance of the book Cohesion in English, Cohesion has attracted so many linguists

that a large number of studies have been carried out in language teaching and learning. Beaurande and

Dressier (1981) stated that using cohesive devices can make the people to express and interpret a text

effectively. Baker (1992) also pointed out that cohesion can help people words and expressions

correctly and effectively, which made a contribution to language learning and teaching. Since 1980,

some books on cohesion have been published in China. Chinese linguists like Hu Zhuanglin (1994),

Huang Guowen (1997) and Zhang Delu ( 2000) introduced the cohesion theory into China. Liu Chendan

(2000) gave a detailed explanation of cohesion theory and a suggestion that it be used in English

teaching. Some of studies centered on the changes in using cohesive devices by learners across

different grade levels. Cherry and Cooper (1981) investigated the compositions written by students from

http://www.sinoss.net

- 4 -

Grade 4, Grade 8, Grade 12 and college students, finding that students had the tendency of using more

lexical cohesion than reference and conjunction, which were strong supported by McCutchen and

Perfetti (1983). They compared two different grade students’ writing and found that elder students

employed more connectors than younger students. Yde and Spoelders (1985) analysed and compared

the intersentential cohesive devices used by Dutch-speaking children 8-9 (N=14) and 10-11 (N=14) in

narrative texts. Their findings indicated that a developmental trend in the construction of more cohesive

and compact narrative texts. Crowhurst (1987) used Halliday and Hasan’s taxonomy of cohesion to

examine the differences in the argumentative prose by 105 students in sixth, tenth and twelfth grade. It

was found that a significant difference existed between grades and the frequency of only 4 types of

cohesive devices used. In this study, the result showed that there was no significant difference among

grade levels concerning the use of various types of cohesion. Grant and Ginther (2000) made an

investigation of 90 second language learners’ argumentative essays. In their research, they found ou

that higher-proficiency EFL learners used more lexical cohesion. Jin (2000) employed both quantitative

method and qualitative method to analyzed cohesive devices used in composoitions by two proficiency

levels of Chinese graduate students. He found that high-level students used cohesive devices more

frequently than intermediate level students. Crowhurst (1987), Fitzgerald and Spiegel (1986) have

proved that grade level affects the use of cohesive devices used in writing. Yang and Sun (2012)

reported that there were differences in the use of cohesive devices between the argumentative writing of

second and fourth year undergraduate Chinese learners. They found that more advanced learners used

more cohesive devices and used them more correctly.

Most of studies supported the idea that the use of cohesive devices increases as writers develop or

writers in higher grades. In general, an increase in the use of cohesive devices across grades exists. As

writers enter higher grades, the use of cohesive devices is increasing. However, all of the studies above

endeavored to study on cohesion used by learners across different grades. This study focuses on a

single group of EFL learners across two different proficiency levels. Participants are at the same grade

which can better show the developmental differences in the use of cohesive devices.

3 Research Methodology

3.1 Research Questions

In order to study on the use of cohesive devices in argumentative essays written by learners at

different language proficiency levels, the present study aims to address the following two issues:

Research question 1: What is the distribution of cohesive devices in the argumentative essays of

college students?

http://www.sinoss.net

- 5 -

Research question 2: Is there any frequency difference of cohesive devices across two different

proficiency levels? If any, is it significant?

3.2 Participants

The participants whose majors were Business Administration, Chemistry and Chemical Engineering,

International Marketing, Electronic and Information Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and

Automation and Geotechnical Engineering respectively in the study were sophomores of six classes in

Hunan University. The participants of this study were 119 students. All of students have already taken

the CET-4, and their ages range from 19-20. The participants were divided into H-group and L-group

according to their CET-4 scores: higher level learners are who had passed CET-4 and whose results

were at the top 30 in participants. The lower level learners are those whose results were at the bottom

30 in participants. Both groups have 30 students. As we all know, CET-4 is a national large-scale

standardized test. It aims to test the comprehensive English language proficiency of Chinese English

learners in the university. So it is justifiable to determine students’ language proficiency levels according

to their CET-4 scores.

3.3 Procedures

To make the experiment go smooth and the results of the study are reliable and valid, a careful

and logic procedure is needed.

The questionnaire was used to collect the students’ CET-4 and CET-6 scores in order to evaluate

the students’ language proficiency level. The questionnaire was written in Chinese, so that student

could be able to understand it better.

Then a writing task was needed. Subjects involved in this study are required to write an

argumentative composition of about 150 words on a given topic: Should college students be allowed to

change their majors according to their needs and interests? Different topics and writing types may lead

to difficulties in analyzing of cohesive devices; therefore, it is more reasonable and safer to choose the

same writing type and topic so as to generate more reliable and accurate results. The reasons why the

argumentative composition on the topic of Should college students be allowed to change their majors

according to their needs and interests are as follow: first, argumentative writing is the foundation for

students to improve their academic writing skills. Second, as the relationship between major and

interest is a hot topic among college students and is very familiar to most students, so they have their

own opinions about this topic.

http://www.sinoss.net

- 6 -

4 results and discussion

4.1 Cohesive Device Distribution in General

The number of cohesive devices used in compositions has been calculated. The following pie chart

provides a clear picture of the general distribution of the five cohesive device types.

Figure 4.1 General Distribution of Cohesive Devices

※ R=reference S=substitution E=ellipsis

※ C=conjunction L=lexical cohesion

From Figure 4.1, it is evident to get the following conclusion: reference as a cohesive device hits the

record of 1340 times which occupies 43.21% among all the five cohesive device types. The second

cohesive device is the conjunction which occurs 1074 times and occupies 34.63% proportion of all these

five devices, followed by lexical cohesion 635 times, 20.48%; substitution 28 times, 0.90%, and the least

frequent cohesive device is ellipsis which occur 24 times and took up only 0.77%. This is the general

distribution of cohesive devices. Figure 4.1 shows that various kinds of cohesive devices are employed

in students’ argumentative essays with reference, conjunction more frequently than others. Substitution

and ellipsis are seldom used.

As the results showed in figure 4.1, it is found that students use more reference devices than any

other cohesive devices which occupies 43.21% which shows students depends more on reference

devices, followed by conjunction devices (34.63%) and lexical devices (20.48%). This result is a little

different from the results of other researchers (Yvette and Yip, 1992; Zhang, 2000, M. Liu and G. Brain

2005). Because the use of definite article “the” is calculated in this paper and many uses of personal

reference might be related to the topic of writing. Students use personal pronouns in compositions many

times to show their opinions about changing majors or not. As in M. Liu and G. Brain’s study (2005), the

participants were from Tsinghua University and the marking criteria for the writing were well explained to

the students and the requirements and aims were specified. Moreover, cohesion and coherence were

emphasized with explicit instruction throughout the term both in required reading and writing. As a result,

http://www.sinoss.net

- 7 -

the students in their study had a better and clear understanding of their strengths and weaknesses and

a lot of improvement could be made. So they could write long compositions and employed more lexical

devices. Of all these cohesive devices, substitution and ellipsis are used fewer comparatively for the

proportion of substitution is 0.98% and the ellipsis is 0.84%. Halliday and Hasan (2001) said that

substitution and ellipsis appear mostly in spoken or informal discourse such as face-to-face

conversations and interactions. For the frequency difference, the students depends more on reference

and conjunction to produce coherent compositions. The use of substitution and ellipsis is not so obvious

which makes less contribution to the writing quality.

4.2 Application of Cohesive Devices between Two groups

In this section, the application differences of cohesive devices across two different proficiency levels

are discussed to answer the second research question.

In this sub-section, the frequency difference of cohesive devices between two groups will be

analyzed based on the data of these 60 subjects.

Table 4.1 Frequency Difference of Cohesive Devices between Two Groups

Cohesive devices H-group (n=30) L-group (n=30)

Number Percentage (%) Number Percentage

Reference 365 40.83 301 44.40

Substitution 4 0.45 9 1.33

Ellipsis 6 0.67 5 0.74

Conjunction 340 38.03 229 33.77

Lexical Device 179 20.02 134 19.76

Total 894 100 678 100

From Table 4.1, it can be reached that there exist some differences between H-group and L-group

in the use of cohesive devices. The total number of cohesive devices used in H-group (894) is higher

than that in L-group (679). Broadly speaking, the students in H-group employ cohesive devices more

frequently than those in L-group but there are some differences concerning different device types.

Reference (365 in H-group, 301 in L-group), ellipsis (6 in H-group, 5 in L-group), conjunction (340 in

H-group, 229 in L-group), lexical devices (179 in H-group, 134 in L-group) are employed more frequently

in H-group than L-group. By contrast, the result of substitution (4 in H-group, 9 in L-group) is different.

This kind of cohesive device is more frequently employed in L group than in H group. It can be seen that

among five cohesive devices, the use percentage of reference is the highest in both groups (40.83% in

H-group, 40.40% in L-group), followed by conjunction (38.03% in H-group, 33.77% in L-group) and

lexical device (20.02% in H-group, 19.76% in L-group). Moreover, substitution and ellipsis are seldom

used in both groups.

Table 4.2 gives the descriptive statistics for the differences of cohesive devices used in

http://www.sinoss.net

- 8 -

compositions between two groups.

Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics for the Use of Cohesive Device Types between Two Groups

CD Types Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

R H-group 30 12.17 3.217 .587

L-group 30 10.03 3.057 .558

S H-group 30 .13 .346 .063

L-group 30 .30 .702 .128

E H-group 30 .20 .407 .074

L-group 30 .17 .379 .069

C H-group 30 11.33 3.585 .654

L-group 30 7.63 3.168 .578

L. H-group 30 5.97 2.251 .411

L-group 30 4.47 1.279 .234

Total H-group 30 29.80 6.359 1.161

L-group 30 22.60 5.373 .981

※R= reference S= substitution E= ellipsis C=conjunction L=lexical cohesion

Table 4.2 shows that the means and standard deviations on the use of different types of cohesive

devices between two groups. The total number of cohesive devices used in composition is larger in

H-group than in L-group (M=29.80 SD=6.359 in H-group, M=22.60 SD=5.373 in L-group), comparatively,

students in H-group have a higher variability than those in L-group. The means and standard

deviations of reference (M=29.80 SD=6.359 in H-group, M=22.60 SD=5.373 in L-group), substitution

(M=.13 SD=.346 in H-group, M=.30 SD=.702 in L-group), ellipsis (M=.20 SD=.407 in H-group, M=.17

SD=.379 in L-group), conjunction (M=.11.33 SD=.3.585 in H-group, M=7.63 SD=3.168 in L-group) and

lexical devices (M=5.97 SD=.2.251 in H-group, M=4.47 SD=1.279 in L-group) are also displayed.

In order to look into the relation between the number of cohesive ties and the language proficiency,

Independent Sample Test is employed to check whether the number of cohesive devices used in H

group is significantly different from that in L group. The result is shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Significant Statistics for the Use of Cohesive Device Types between Two Groups

Levene's Test

for Equality of

Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

R Eva 1.041 .312 2.633 58 .011** 2.133 .810 .511 3.755

Evan 2.633 57.84 .011** 2.133 .810 .511 3.755

S Eva 5.825 .019 -1.166 58 .248 -.167 .143 -.453 .119

Evan -1.166 42.28 .250 -.167 .143 -.455 .122

E Eva .433 .513 .328 58 .744 .033 .102 -.170 .237

Evan .328 57.71 .744 .033 .102 -.170 .237

http://www.sinoss.net

- 9 -

C Eva 1.468 .231 4.236 58 .000** 3.700 .873 1.952 5.448

Evan 4.236 57.13 .000** 3.700 .873 1.951 5.449

L Eva 15.85 .000 3.173 58 .002** 1.500 .473 .554 2.446

Evan 3.173 45.96 .003** 1.500 .473 .548 2.452

Total Eva .659 .420 4.737 58 .000** 7.200 1.520 4.157 10.243

Evan 4.737 56.42 .000** 7.200 1.520 4.156 10.244

※ Eva = Equal variances assumed

※ Evan= Equal variances not assumed

※ R= reference S= substitution E= ellipsis C=conjunction L=lexical cohesion

The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

From Table 4.3, it is showed that there is a significant difference between two groups for the total

use of cohesive devices (sig=.000). Moreover, significant differences were found for the use of reference

(sig=.011), conjunction (sig=.000) and lexical device (sig=.003) between two groups. However the

substitution value of sig. (.250) and the ellipsis value of sig.(.744) are larger than 0.05, which indicates

that there is no significant difference between these two groups in terms of substitution and ellipsis,

because they are seldom used in compositions.

From table 4.2 and 4.3, we can see that the frequency of cohesive devices used displays a trend of

increase across two language proficiency levels. The finding indicates that students are more conscious

of using cohesive devices in their compositions with the increase their proficiency levels. It might be that

the use of cohesive devices in argumentative writings has an effect on the language proficiency level.

Students in H-group seem more capable of using various cohesive devices to make their compositions

clear and logical. However, different types of cohesive devices display different trends of change across

two language proficiency levels. The frequencies of reference, conjunction and lexical device display a

trend of increase which is a little different from the finding of Xu Yucheng (2003). In their studies, the

frequencies of reference and conjunction display a trend of decrease across different grade levels. The

possible reasons are that expository writings rather than argumentative writings were analyzed in his

study and participants in his were English major undergraduates of first-year and third-year. We need

more detailed studies to answer this question. While the frequencies of substitution and ellipsis displays

a trend of decrease across two language proficiency levels in this study. The possible reason might be

that students with higher level would avoid using cohesive devices in their compositions which mostly

appear in spoken discourse. The finding is similar to Xu Yucheng’s conclusion (2003). He finds that

there is no significant difference in terms of the frequency of substitution and ellipsis across two

proficiency levels. The research concerning the use of conjunctions between two groups shows there is

a significant difference between two groups, however, the research of Xu Yuchen (2003) finds that the

overall frequency of conjunctions between two language proficiency levels is not significant. The result

of Xu Yuchen (2003) shows that there is a significant difference in the frequencies of temporal which is

http://www.sinoss.net

- 10 -

similar to the finding in this paper. The increase of temporal attributes to the students’ increase of

proficiency levels. Students in H-group are more able to employ temporal devices like first, second, third,

last but not least to express their ideas or arguments more clearly.

Conclusion

The main purpose of this study is to study the use of cohesive devices in the argumentative writing.

Based on the data analysis in chapter 4, the main research findings are presented as follows:

The first finding, which answers the first research question proposed in this study, is that among all

the cohesive devices, reference occupies the largest proportion followed by conjunction and lexical

devices, that is to say college students is more likely to employ reference to achieve text cohesion in

their argumentative, and conjunction and lexical devices also contribute a lot to the cohesion and

coherence of the writing.

The second finding is that there exists a statically significant difference between the H-group and

L-group compositions in the number of cohesive devices. The compositions in H-group employ more

cohesive ties than the L-group, especially in terms of conjunction, but the compositions of H-group

employ less substitution than those in L-group. The finding here shows that there is a significant relation

between the number of cohesive devices and language proficiency level; the number of reference,

conjunction, ellipsis and lexical devices is positively related to the language proficiency level;

nevertheless, substitution is to some degree negatively related to the language proficiency level.

References

[1] Badger, R., Yang M., Yu Z. 2006. A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in Chinese EFL writing class [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 14: 191-205.

[2] Baker, M. 1991. In other words: a Coursebook on Translation [M]. London and New York: Longman.

[3] Baker, M. 1992. In other words: a Coursebook on Translation [M]. London: Routledge. [4] Beaugrande, R. de & Dressler, W. U. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics [M]. London:

Longman. [5] Chen,X. F. 2007. Lexical cohesion in Chinese college EFL writing. CELEA Journal 5: 46-55.

[6] Chiang, S. 2003. The importance of cohesive conditions to perceptions of writing quality at the

early stages of foreign language learning [J]. System, 31: 471–484

[7] Connor, U. 1990. Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing [J].

Research in the Teaching of English 24 (1):67–87

[8] Crossley and McNamara. 2010. Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency [R]. Presented at the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Portland (United States), August 2010.

[9] Crowhurst, M. 1987. Cohesion in argument and narration at three grade levels[J]. Research in the Teaching of English 25: 179-218.

[10] Ellis, R. 1999. The Study of Second Language Acquisition [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

[11] Enkvist, N. E.(ed.). 1978. A comparison of internal conjunctive cohesion in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English [C]. Finland: Abo Akademi Foundation.

[12] Ferretti, R. P., Andrews-Weckerly, S. & Lewis, W. E. 2007. Improving the argumentative writing of students with learning disabilities: Descriptive and normative considerations [J]. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties 23: 267-285.

[13] Grant, J. & Ginther, A. 2000. Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing difference [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 9:123-145.

http://www.sinoss.net

- 11 -

[14] Gutwinski & Waldemar. 1976. Cohesion in Literary texts [M]. Paris: Mouton, 26. [15] Halldiay, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London:

Edward Arnold.

[16] Halliday, M.A.K & Hasan, R. 2001. Cohesion in English [M]. Beijing：Foreign Language Teaching

and Research Press. [17] Harnett, G. G. 1986. Static and dynamic cohesion: Signals of thinking in writing [A]. In Conture, B.

(ed.). Functional Approaches to Writing: Research Perspectives [C]. London: Printer. [18] Hoey, M. 2000. Patterns of Lexis in Text [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education

Press. [19] Jin, W. J. 2000. A quantitative study of cohesion in Chinese graduate students’ writing: Variations

across genres and proficiency levels [R]. Paper presented at Symposium on Second Language Writing. Indiana, September 2000.

[20] Jacobson, R. 1957. Shifters, Verbal Categories, and the Russian Verb [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

[21] Johnson, D.P. 1992. Cohesion and coherence in compositions in Malay and English [J]. RELC Journal 23 : 1-17.

[22] Kang, J.Y. 2005. Written narratives as an index of L2 competence in Korean EFL learners [J].

Journal of Second Language Writing 14 :259–279. [23] Liu, M. & Braine, G. 2005. Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese

undergraduates [J]. System 33: 623-636.

[24] McCutchen, D. & Perfetti, C. A. 1983. Local coherence: Helping young writers manage a complex task[J]. Elementary School Journal 84:1-32.

[25] McNamara, D.S., Louwerse, M.M., McCarthy, P.M., & Graesser, A.C. 2010. Capturing linguistic features of cohesion [J]. Discourse Processes 47: 292-330.

[26] Sun, J. 2009. A corpus-based study of developmental stages of demonstratives in Chinese English majors’ writing. Asian Social Science 5(11): 117-125.

[27] Yang, W.X. & Sun. Y. 2012. The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese

EFL learners at different proficiency levels [J]. Linguistics and Education 23(1):31–48.

[28] Yde, P. & Spoelders, M. 1985. Text cohesion: An exploratory study with beginning writers [J].

Applied Psycholinguistics 6: 407-415. [29] Zhang, M.S. 2000. Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese

universities [J]. RELC Journal 30(1): 61-95.

[30] 胡壮麟. 1994. 语篇的衔接与连贯[M]. 上海: 上海教育出版社.

[31] 胡壮麟. 2006. 系统功能语言学概论[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社.

[32] 李长忠. 2002. 语篇的衔接、连贯与大学英语写作[J]. 外语与外语教学(11): 25-28

[33] 苗兴伟. 1998. 论衔接与连贯的关系[J]. 上海外国语大学学报(4): 44-49.

[34] 王守仁. 2011.关于高校大学英语教学的几点思考[J]. 外语教学理论与实践(1): 1-5.

[35] 文秋芳，刘润清. 2008. 从英语议论文分析大学生抽象思维特点[ed.].《英语写作教学与研究的中

国视角---第四届中国英语写作教学与研究国际研讨会论文集》[C] (1): 46-56. 北京：外语教学

与研究出版社.

[36] 王初明, 牛瑞英, 郑小湘. 2000. 以写促学[J]. 外语教学与研究(3): 207-212

[37] 徐伟成. 2000. 英语写作中的衔接和连贯与写作质量[J]. 广州大学学报(5): 33-35.

[38] 徐玉臣. 2000.词汇衔接与作文质量的关系[J]. 国外外语教学(2): 33-37.

[39] 徐玉臣,2003,“英语作文衔接模式与衔接错误的对比分析”,《国外外语教学》,第 3期:54-60

[40] 许雪芬. 2004. 试论大学生英语写作中语篇的衔接与连贯[J]. 教学研究(6): 558-560

[41] 张德禄, 刘汝山. 2003. 语篇连贯与衔接理论的发展及应用[M]. 上海:上海外语教育出版社.

[42] 朱永生,郑立信,苗兴伟. 2001. 英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究[M]. 上海:上海外语教育出版社.

[43] 朱永生. 1995. 衔接理论的发展与完善[J]. 上海外国语大学学报(3): 36-41

A Study on the Use of Cohesive Devices in Argumentative Essays by

Learners at Different Language Proficiency Levels

Xu Hongmei Liu Xiaoling

(Hunan University, Changsha / Hunan, 410082)

http://www.sinoss.net

- 12 -

Abstract：Argumentative writing is characterized by its logic and coherence and plays a very

important role in improving students’ language expressing ability. Cohesion in argumentative writing is a

criterion to evaluate logic and coherent writings and can also reflect one’s writing ability. So it is very

necessary to investigate the use of cohesive devices in argumentative writings.

The participants were 119 second-year undergraduate non-English majors, studying in Hunan

University. They were divided into two different language proficiency levels (H-group and L-group)

according to their CET-4 scores. High level learners are the top 30 students and low level learners were

the bottom 30. All the participants were asked to compose an argumentative essay and these

compositions were evaluated according to writing range-finders for CET-4. Using Halliday and Hasan’s

taxonomy of cohesive devices and their framework for analysis, this study mainly explores the general

distribution of cohesive devices and investigates the differences in the application between two groups.

After collecting and analyzing data, the main findings are obtained and presented as follows:

1) Reference was the most frequently used, followed by conjunction, lexical devices.

Substitution and ellipsis were seldom used in compositions.

2) There was a significant difference in the use of reference, conjunction and lexical devices

between two groups. It was found that a positive relation existed between language

proficiency level and the use of cohesive devices.

Although only 119 argumentative compositions produced by college students seem small in size, it

can still provide some pedagogical implications for writing teaching according to the findings of the study.

Teachers should emphasize the instruction of cohesion in class and draw college students’ attention to

the proper use of different cohesive device types. Students need to extend their vocabulary in order to

produce more vivid and effective compositions by applying more lexical devices，especially more

antonyms and synonyms.

Keywords: learners at different language levels; argumentative writing; cohesive devices; coherence