Strategies for the Construction of Cohesion in English through the Use of Conjunctions

(1)

1.BackgroundandLiteratureReview

In recentyears,teaching studentsto develop paragraphslogically and to writein a mannerthatiseasy forthereadertounderstand hasincreasingly cometobeviewed as important.Previousresearcheshaveshownthattheuseofconjunctionsincreasesthecohesion oftextandresultsinwritingthatiseasierforthereadertocomprehend.Furthermore,with progressin learnercorpusresearch,moreandmorestudiesarebeing donethatlook into trendsintheuseofconjunctionsinwritingbybothlearnersandnativespeakersofEnglish.

Oneimportantissueistherelationshipbetween writing ability andcohesion.Previous researcheshavenotyielded aconsistentconclusion,butmorestudiesseem torecognizea linkbetweenthetwo.

Numerousstudieshavebeenconductedcomparingcohesionandconjunctionsintextby learnersofEnglish and nativespeakers(Altenberg & Tapper,1998;Granger & Tyson,1996;

学苑人間社会学部紀要 No.892 57～69（20152）

Strategi

esfortheConstructi

onofCohesi

oni

n

Engl

i

shthroughtheUseofConj

uncti

ons

TakakoKOBAYASHI

Abstract

Thepurposeofthispaperisto considermethodsofinstruction in theproperuseof conjunctionsbyJapaneselearnersofEnglishbyusingcorpusofEnglishwritingbyJapanese universitystudentsandfocusingontheroleofconjunctions,whichareconsideredtofulfillan importantroleinincreasingcohesion.

Three conjunctions were chosen for the analysis,and the Japanese,Chinese,Russian, BulgarianandTurkishsub-corporatakenfrom thesecondversionoftheInternationalCorpus ofLearnerEnglish(ICLEv2)aswellasanativespeakercorpusLOCNESS-US wereexamined forthepurposeofcomparison.

Theanalysisfoundthatthereisastatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweennativespeakers ofEnglishandnon-nativelearnersofEnglishregardingtheuseofaboveconjunctionsaswell asthesentencepositioninwhichtheyareused.

Thefindingsinthisstudyhasledustotheconclusionthat,nomatterwhatthemother tonguebackgroundoftheEnglishlearneris,strategiesareneededtoincreasecohesionofthe textandcorrectuseofconjunctionsplaysanimportantpartinordertowritetextsthatare logicalandreadlikenaturalEnglish.

Keywords:conjunctions,cohesion,ICLE sub-corpora,logicalparagraphwritinginEnglish

(2)

Halliday& Hasan,1976;Narita,Sato& Sugiura,2004;Narita& Sugiura,2006).

Amongthefirstresearcherstoarguethenecessityofwritinglogicallyconsistenttext wereHallidayandHasan(1976),whoarguedthattodosoitisimportanttohave・coherence・ in discourse and ・cohesion・ among sentences.Cohesion in this case refers to linguistic symbolsthatimpartconsistencytotext,linkseriesofgrammaticallyindependentsentences, and givetexturetotext.In theirCohesion in English,Halliday and Hasan(1976)describe cohesionasfollows.

Butthereisonespecifickindofmeaningrelationthatiscriticalforthecreationoftexture:that in which ONE ELEMENT IS INTERPRETED BY REFERENCE TO ANOTHER.Whatcohesion has to do with is theway in which themeaning ofthe elements is interpreted.Where the interpretation ofany item in thediscourserequiresmaking referencetosomeotheritem in the discourse,thereiscohesion.(Halliday& Hasan,1976,p.11)

Furthermore,HallidayandHasan(1976)define・text・asfollows.

Theword TEXT isused in linguisticstorefertoany passage,spoken orwritten,ofwhatever length,thatdoesform aunifiedwhole.Weknow,asageneralrule,whetheranyspecimenofour ownlanguageconstitutesaTEXT ornot.Thisdoesnotmeantherecanneverbeanyuncertainty. Thedistinctionbetweenatextandacollectionofunrelatedsentencesisinthelastresortamatter ofdegree,and theremay alwaysbeinstancesaboutwhich we areuncertaina pointthatis probably familiartomostteachersfrom reading theirstudents・compositions.Butthisdoesnot invalidatethegeneralobservationthatwearesensitivetothedistinctionbetweenwhatistextand whatisnot.(Halliday& Hasan,1976,p.1)

Putdifferently,in linguistics・text・refersto any passagethatconstitutesa unified wholewhich,whether spoken or written,a native speaker would have no difficulty in recognizingasaunifiedwhole,notjustacollectionofmutuallyunrelatedsentences.

・Text・ and ・cohesion・ in thesesensesbecameestablished astermsthrough concepts suchastheaboveintroducedbyHallidayandHasan(1976).HallidayandHasan(1976)goon toidentifytwotypesofcohesion,GRAMMATICAL COHESION andLEXICAL COHESION, butmaintainthatitisnotnecessarytopaythatmuchattentiontothedifferencebetween thetwo.

Wecan refer therefore to GRAMMATICAL COHESION and LEXICAL COHESION....The distinction between grammaticalandlexicalisreally only oneofdegree,andweneednotmake toomuchofithere.(Halliday& Hasan,1976,p.6)

Furthermore,HallidayandHasan(1976)countconjunctionamongdevicesofgrammatical cohesion;they arguethatitdiffersin naturefrom theothercohesiverelations,namely reference,substitution,andellipsis,inthatitisnotmerelyananaphoricrelation.

(3)

Thefourthandfinaltypeofcohesiverelationthatwefindinthegrammaristhatofconjunction. Conjunction isratherdifferentin naturefrom theothercohesiverelations,from both reference, ontheonehand,andsubstitutionandellipsisontheother.Itisnotsimplyananaphoricrelation.

(Halliday& Hasan,1976,p.226)

AccordingtoHallidayandHasan(1976),therearefivefunctionsthatcomprisetheconcept ofcohesion:reference,substitution,ellipsis,conjunction,and lexicalcohesion.Moreover, Halliday andHasan(1976)statethatcohesiveelementsarenotcohesivein themselves,but cohesiveinanindirectwaybecauseofthespecificmeaningstheyhave.

Conjunctiveelementsarecohesivenotin themselvesbutindirectly,by virtueoftheir specific meanings;theyarenotprimarilydevicesforreachingoutintothepreceding(orfollowing)text, butthey expresscertain meaningswhich presupposethepresenceofother componentsin the discourse.(Halliday& Hasan,1976,p.226)

In this paper,out of the five elements noted above,I focus my examination on conjunction based on the perspective that effective instruction in writing for Japanese learnersofEnglishrequireslearnerstoincreasethecohesionoftextthattheywriteandto composelogicaltextbymakingeffectiveuseofconjunctions.

Researchthatcomparesthedifferencesintheusageofconjunctiveexpressionsbylearners andnativespeakersofEnglishisusefulfrom aneducationalperspective.Nevertheless,ifone istodevelopeducationalimplications,onemuststudystudentsoftheroughlythesameage, otherwiseitbecomesdifficulttodeterminewhethertheresultsofthecomparisonsbetween learnersandnativeEnglish speakersareusefultotheformerornot.Anothertask useful fordeepeningtheresultsofresearchistolookatwhatkindofdifferencestherearebetween JapaneselearnersandlearnersofEnglishfrom othermothertonguebackgrounds.

GrangerandTyson(1996)comparedtheusageofconjunctionsinessayswrittenbyFrench learnersofEnglishintheInternationalCorpusofLearnerEnglish(ICLE)withnativespeakersof Englishandreportedfindingthatwhilelearnersoveruseconjunctionsthataddinformation andexpresscoordination/apposition,theytendtounderuseconjunctionsthatshow contrast andconsequences.Withadvancesmadeinlearnercorpusresearch,thereisagrowingbody ofresearchinvestigatingtrendsintheuseofconjunctionsinwritingbybothlearnersand

Table1:TypesofconjunctiveexpressionsaccordingtoHalliday& Hasan(1976)

Additive:and,furthermore,thatis,inthesameway,etc. Adversative:yet,but,however,actually,onthecontrary,etc. Causal:so,hence,therefore,inthatcase,etc.

(4)

nativespeakersofEnglish.Thesepreviousstudieshaveshownthattoconstructanessayof highreadability,itisnecessaryforthecontentofeachparagraphtobecoherent,foritwill beeasyforthereadertounderstand,andforthesentencestobeconnectedappropriately.

Crewe(1990)hasconductedresearch comparing nativeEnglish speakersandlearnersof English.Crewe(1990)suggeststhatoverusingconjunctiveexpressionsmaybeseenasaway of・disguising poorwriting,・and thatifthey aregoing tobeused erroneously ortheir overusecausestheirargumentstowander,itisbetterthattheybeavoided.

WehaveseenthatlogicalconnectivesarefrequentlymisusedbyESL writers.Notonlyarethey usedwitherroneousmeanings(e.g.・onthecontrary・isusedfor・ontheotherhand・;・infact・is usedwithoutregardtoitsconfessionalnuance),buttheyareover-used.Over-useatbestclutters upthetextunnecessarily,andatworstcausesthethreadoftheargumenttozigzag about,as eachconnectivepointsitinadifferentdirection.(Crewe,1990,p.324)

InastudyofsecondlanguagelearnersofEnglish,Ferris(1994)analyzedessaysby160 studentsofEnglish asa second language(nativespeakersofArabic,Chinese,Japanese,and Spanish)whorespondedtoanessaypromptabouttheeffectsofcultureshock.Ferris(1994) brokedown theresultsintotwogroupsbasedon overalllevelsandfoundthattheupper groupusedconjunctiveexpressionswithgreaterfrequency,andthatthefrequencycorrelated withtheessayscores.

Thegreaterproductionofothertextvariablesbymoreadvancedacquirerssuggeststhattheyhave morelexicalandsyntactictoolsavailablewhen they approach awriting task.Examplesofthis include the more frequentuse ofspecific lexicalcategories (e.g.,emphatics,hedges)and the greaterproductionofdifficultsyntacticconstructions(e.g.,stativeforms,participialconstructions, relativeclausesandotheradverbialclauses).(Ferris,1994,p.417)

Narita,SatoandSugiura(2004)quantitativelyanalyzedtheuseofEnglishconjunctions byJapaneseuniversitystudentsusingtheJapaneselearnersub-corpusdataoftheICLE,an EnglishlearnercorpusprojectwhichcontainsalargevolumeofessaysinEnglishcomposed by Japanese university students.They found that,compared to native English-speaking university students,1)Japanesestudentstend to overuseconjunctions,2)thatthereare conjunctions that are underused, 3) and that the position used for conjunctions is predominantlylimitedtothebeginningofsentences.Similarresultshavebeenreportedfor learnersofEnglishfrom othermothertonguebackgroundsaswell(Altenberg& Tapper,1998; Granger& Tyson,1996).

NaritaandSugiura(2006)studiedtheuseofEnglishconjunctionsbyJapaneseuniversity studentsusingtheICLEJapaneselearnersub-corpusandargumentativeLOCNESS-US,which is the component of the Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays that contains argumentative essays by American university students.Twenty-five conjunctions studied

(5)

were chosen based on grammars by Quirk et al.(1985)and Biber et al.(1999).These conjunctionsweredividedintofourcategoriesaccordingtotheirsemanticroles:1)enumeration/ addition,2)coordination/apposition,3)result/inference,and 4)contrast/concession.Upon quantitatively analyzing thefrequency ofuseoftheseconjunctionsand thepositionsin whichtheyareused(beginning,middle,orendofsentence),theyfoundthatcomparedtonative Englishspeakers,JapaneselearnersofEnglishtendtooveruseconjunctions,andusethem morefrequentlyatthebeginningofsentences.

2.Method

Based on thesepreviousstudies,in thisstudy Iarbitrarily choseseveralofthe25 conjunctionschosenbyNaritaandSugiura(2006)thatJapaneseuniversitystudentsoveruse, comparedacorpusoftextsbylearnersofEnglishfrom othermothertonguebackgrounds with a corpusoftextsby nativespeakers,and examined trendsseen among learnersof English from differentmothertonguebackgrounds.Naritaand Sugiura(2006)studied not conjunctionsbutadverbialwordsandphrasesdefinedbyQuirketal.(1985)as・conjuncts・ andbyBiberetal.(1999)as・linkingadverbials・intheircomparisonofexamplesofusein EnglishparagraphsbyJapaneselearnersofEnglishwithlearnersofEnglishwhosenative languagesarenotJapanese.

In thepresentstudy,Ielected touseasimilarmethod asNaritaand Sugiura(2006), choosing fivesub-corpora oftextsby learnersofEnglish from differentmother tongue backgrounds.ThereasonisbecauseinEnglishessayswrittenbyJapaneseuniversitystudents, thereismuchconfusionofconjunctionsandadverbs,andalsothetypesofconjunctionstend tobelimited,andastheresult,theuseofconjunctionscan beregardedasoneofmajor issuesforJapaneselearnersofEnglish.Sincethisstudy investigatesnotjustcorpora of JapaneselearnersofEnglishandnativeEnglishspeakersbutalsosub-corporaoflearnersof Englishfrom othermothertonguebackgrounds,Ididnotinvestigateall25oftheEnglish conjunctions laid out by Narita and Sugiura(2006),but only those in four semantic categories, namely enumeration/addition, coordination/apposition, result/inference, and contrast/concession.

Threeresearchquestionsweresetasfollows:

RQ 1:Is the frequency ofEnglish conjunctions presumed to be overused by Japanese universitystudents(EFL students)roughlythesameasEnglishlearnersfrom othermother tonguebackgrounds?Isthereadifferenceobservedwiththatofnativespeakers?

RQ 2:WhenJapaneseuniversitystudentsandothernon-nativeEnglishlearnersuseEnglish conjunctions,wheredotheyplacethem mostfrequentlyinsentences?

RQ 3:Is there any notable tendency in the use ofconjunctions by non-native English learnersofdifferentmothertonguebackgrounds?

(6)

Sugiura(2006)areshowninTable2.

3.CorporaUsed

Thedatausedweretakenfrom theJapanese,Chinese,Russian,Bulgarian,andTurkish sub-corpora ofthesecond version ofICLEv2,which containsargumentativeessaysofat least500wordseach written by third-andfourth-yearuniversity studentsin 16countries. Thereason IchosetheJapaneselearnerand othersub-corpora listed abovefrom the16 nationalsub-corporacontainedinICLEv2isthatthesefivesub-corporaaremadeupentirely ofargumentativeessays,andassuchtheydonotcontaintextsofdifferingtypes,suchas literarywriting.ThenumberofwordsperessayinICLEv2variesfrom sub-corpustosub-corpus,butaverage617words.

Forthepurposesofcomparison with theselearnersub-corpora,Iusedthedatafrom argumentative English essays written by 176 American university students that are containedintheLouvainCorpusofNativeEnglishEssays(LOCNESS-US),whichisacorpus ofaround149,574written wordsby American university studentscompiledwith thesame conditionsasICLE.

Among the10conjunctionsthatNarita and Sugiura(2006)found to becomparatively highlyusedbyJapaneseuniversitystudents,namely・forexample,・・however,・・ofcourse,・・therefore,・・first,・・moreover,・・inaddition,・・thatistosay,・・next,・and・asaresult,・I chosetolookatthetopthreeintermsoffrequency,specifically・forexample,・・however,・ and・ofcourse.・Anoverview ofdataforeachisshowninTable3.

As for the research method, from each sub-corpus I used a computer software WordSmith version 6to automatically search and identify allinstancesofusetogether with information in the contextofsearch strings matching the relevantconjunctions, visually confirmedalloftheseusageexamples,andexaminedtheirfrequency andposition withinsentences.

Table2:Conjunctionsexamined(Narita& Sugiura,2006)

Semanticcategory Conjunctions

Enumeration/addition first,next,inaddition,similarly,also,furthermore,likewise,moreover, besides

Coordination/apposition forexample,forinstance,thatistosay

Result/inference therefore,thus,then,asaresult,hence,ofcourse

(7)

4.Results

Tobeginwith,inthisstudyIsearchedforthephrase・forexample,・whichisthought to be overused by Japanese university students,using the More statistics:occurrences functionunderStatisticsavailableforjointcorpuscollectionandlinguisticqueryavailablein ICLEv2.Theresultsareshown in Table4.Furthermore,given thefinding by Naritaand Sugiura(2006)thatJapaneselearnersofEnglishhaveastrongtendencytouseconjunctions atthebeginningofsentences,IcomparedtheBulgarian,Chinese,Russian,andTurki shsub-corporawiththecorpusofnativeEnglishspeakers.

IfirstreframedthefindingsshowninTable5intermsofoccurrencesper100,000words,as thefrequencyofuseof・forexample・differsaccordingtoeachsub-corpus.Asaresult,it becameclearthatthefrequency and position ofuseof・forexample・variesamong

non-Table3:BreakdownofICLEv2 Sub-corpusbynative

languageoflearner No.ofessays No.ofwords

Bulgarian 302 200,194 Chinese 982 490,617 Czech 243 201,687 Dutch 263 234,723 Finnish 390 274,628 French 347 226,922 German 437 229,698 Italian 392 224,222 Japanese 366 198,241 Norwegian 317 211,725 Polish 365 233,920 Russian 276 229,584 Spanish 251 198,131 Swedish 355 200,033 Turkish 280 199,532 Tswana 519 199,173 ICLEv2 6,085 3,753,030

Table4:LOCNESS-US(corpusofargumentativeessaysbyAmericanuniversitystudents)

Totalnumberofwords:149,574 Numberofessays:176

(8)

nativespeakersofEnglish.Specifically,JapaneseandTurkish learnersused・forexample・ atthebeginningofsentencesatamuchhigherratethanotherlearnersofEnglish.Inthe caseofJapaneselearnersofEnglish,itoccurred with a frequency of133.17per100,000 words,which isfarhigherthan othersub-corpora.Moreover,therewere106.94instances per100,000wordsof・forexample・being usedatthebeginning ofasentence,making it clear thatJapanese learners overuse ・for example・ more than learners from the other mother tonguebackgrounds.Onelikely reason isinterferencefrom thenativelanguage stemmingfrom thetendencyofJapanesepeopletoavoidassertiveexpressionsandtherefore use・forexample・inplaceoftheJapanesehedgeword・tatoeba.・

Bulgarian,Chinese,Russian,andTurkishlearnersalsouse・forexample・withahigher totalfrequencythannativeEnglishspeakers,buttherewasnoindicationthattheyoveruse itatthebeginning ofsentencesasin thecaseofJapaneselearners.Oneunanticipated findingwasthattheuseof・forexample・atthebeginningofsentenceswasmorefrequent amongnativeEnglishspeakersthanbyBulgarian,Chinese,andRussianlearners.

Next,Iperformedasearchfor・however.・TheresultsareshowninTable6. Table6:Searchresultsfor・however・

Standardizedfrequencyofuseper100,000words Sub-corpusby

nativelanguageTotalfrequency

Useatthe beginning

ofsentenceUsewisentencethin Totalfrequency

Useatthe beginningof

sentence Usewisentencethin

Bulgarian 150 38 112 74.93 18.98 55.95 Chinese 701 401 300 142.88 81.73 61.15 Japanese 150 107 43 75.67 53.97 21.69 Russian 46 46 33 20.04 20.04 14.37 Turkish 95 70 25 47.61 35.08 12.53 LOCNESS-US 190 116 74 126.92 77.49 49.43

Table5:Searchresultsfor・forexample・

Useatthe beginning

(9)

Wecanseefrom thesearchresultsof・however・thatChineselearnershadthehighest rateofoccurrenceper100,000wordsat142.88,followedbynativeEnglishspeakersat126.92. Likewise,useatthebeginning ofsentenceswasvery high among Chineselearnersand nativeEnglish speakers,with 81.73and 77.49occurrencesper100,000words,respectively. Japaneselearnersused itata rateof75.67.Nevertheless,53.97 occurrencesper 100,000 wordsof・however・being used atthebeginning ofsentences,which may notamountto overuseamong thefivesub-corpora,indicatesthatwhen ・however・wasusedby Japanese learners,itwasusedataveryhighrateatthebeginningofsentences.

Incontrast,itisclearfrom Table6thatRussianandTurkishl earnersunderused・how-ever.・

Lastly,Iperformedasearchof・ofcourse,・whichNaritaandSugiura(2006)foundtobe overusedbyJapaneselearnersofEnglish.Table7showstheresults.

The search results show thatTurkish learners ofEnglish used ・ofcourse・ atthe highest frequency,with 95.22 occurrences per 100,000 words,followed wellbehind by Japaneselearnersat57.51occurrences.Itisalsoclearfrom Table7thatbothlearnergroups frequentlyused・ofcourse・atthebeginningofsentences.Bycontrast,Chineselearnersused itwith thelowestfrequency,followedby nativeEnglish speakers.In both oftheselatter corpora,thefrequencyofuseof・ofcourse・atthebeginningofsentenceswaslow.

5.Analysis

Compared with native speakers ofEnglish and other learners ofEnglish,Japanese learnerstendtooveruse・forexample,・andhavean especially strong tendency tousethe phraseatthebeginningofsentences.Asstatedabove,itispossiblethatthisistheresult oftransferfrom theirnativelanguage,Japanese.

Withregardto・however,・ChineselearnersandnativeEnglishspeakersuseitfrequently atthebeginningofsentences,thoughJapaneselearnersdonotnecessarilyoveruseit.

Table7:Searchresultsfor・ofcourse・

Useatthe beginning

(10)

Thefrequencyofuseof・ofcourse・byTurkishlearnersstandsoutasparticularlyhigh. Itisworthstudyinginthefuturewhetherthisistheresultofinterferencebytheirnative language.

Giventhesefindings,Idecidedtoperform anullhypothesistesttodeterminewhether therearestatisticaldifferencesin thefrequenciesand in-sentencepositionsrepresented in Tables5through7.Inthecurrentstudy,Ianalyzedtheuseof・forexample,・・however,・ and・ofcourse・usingPearson・schi-squaredtest.Theresultshowedthateachexceededthe significancethresholdof0.1％,meaningthatthenullhypothesiswasrejectedconcerningthe frequenciesofalloftheconjunctionsandpositions(p＜.001).Putdifferently,theanalysisled totheconclusionthatthereisastatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweennativespeakersof Englishandnon-nativelearnersofEnglishregardingthefrequencyofuseof・forexample,・・however,・and・ofcourse,・andthefrequenciesatwhich they appearatthebeginning of sentencesandwithinsentences.

Giventhisfinding,wecanconcludethat,nomatterwhatthemothertonguebackground oftheEnglish learneris,itisimportantto useconjunctionscorrectly in orderto write paragraphsthathavethenecessarylogicalflow andreadlikenaturalEnglish.

6.PedagogicalImplications

Concerning methodsofinstruction on learning conjunctions,GrangerandTyson(1996) notetheimportanceforstudentstopay moreattention tohow conjunctionsareusedand positioned.

Itisnecessarytoplacemoreemphasisonhowtouseconnectors,layingstressonexaminingtheiruse in authentictexts.Thedistinctionsbetween connectors,whethersyntacticorsemantic,areoften slightanddifficulttograspandtherefore,asZamel(1984)says,studentsmustlearntodifferentiate individuallinking devicessemantically.Asforsyntax,studentsneed to learn theflexibility of connector-positioning,againbystudyingauthentictexts.(Granger& Tyson,1996,p.25)

Given thatconjunctionswork to impartcohesion to text,conjunctiveand referential expressionsplay an importantrolein conveying thethoughtsofthewriter aswellas constructing cohesiverelationshipsamong thesentencesandpassagesthatrepresentthose thoughts.Ifconjunctiveexpressionsareusedproperly,theclarityofcontentandreadability ofa textcan be raised(Flowerdew & Tauroza,1995).Nevertheless,as Crewe(1990)notes, determining whatkindsofcohesiverelationshipstoconstructandwith whatfrequency to usecohesiveexpressionscanbeadifficulttaskevenfornativespeakers,makingitallthe moredifficultforlearnersofEnglishtousethem correctlyandappropriately.

Whilecohesion contributestotheunderstanding ofmeaning in text,someresearchers (Carrell,1982;Brown & Yule,1983;Maxwell& Falick,1992)have argued that there is no guaranteethatcoherenceenhancesconsistencyinthecontentoftext,orwhatHallidayand

(11)

Hasan(1976)callthe・coherence・ofdiscourse.Incontrast,somestudies(Fitzgerald&Spiegel, 1986)have suggested thatthere exists a proportionalrelationship between cohesion and coherence.AsHalliday andHasan(1976)showed,cohesion isaphenomenon inherentin the conjunctions and demonstratives in a text,so itis possible to identify the presenceor absenceofcohesiverelationshipsusingindicatorssuchasfrequencyofoccurrence.Coherence,on the other hand, is a subjective indicator that shows the degree to which semantic connectionsarepresentin thetextfrom thepointofview ofthereader.Itistherefore difficulttorepresentobjectivelythedegreeofcoherenceofatext.

In otherwords,coherenceexiststoareaderthathasspecificbackground knowledge, butbecausetheindicatorsofcohesionandcoherenceareobjectiveandsubjectiverespectively, itisextremelydifficulttoverifyarelationshipbetweenthetwo.

For these reasons,in the context ofteaching writing,it is necessary to see that conjunctionsarebeing used properly and in a mannerthatdoesnotimpedethereader・s semanticinterpretation,and to examinewhether thetrend in theusageofmethodsof expressionvarydependingondifferencesinwritingability.WhenstudentslearningEnglish asaforeignlanguageapproachthetaskofwriting,theyshouldfirstlearnhow toimprove thecohesionmoresothanthecoherenceofthetexttheywrite,andthroughtheexplicit useofdemonstratives,conjunctions,etc.,constructtextwhosesentencesareconnected. 7.Conclusion

The results of the present study showed that there are statistically significant differences among corpora ofnative English speakers and oflearners ofEnglish from differentmothertonguebackgroundsinthefrequencyofconjunctionsusedandtheposition inwhichtheyareused.

Therewerethreeresearchquestionssetforthisstudy.Regardingthefirstquestion,the analysisyieldedstatisticallysignificantresultsindicatingthatJapaneselearnersofEnglish overuse・for example・ and useitwith a high frequency atthebeginning ofsentences. Likewise,TurkishlearnersofEnglishexhibitedasimilartrendfor・ofcourse.・Asforthe secondresearchquestion,theanalysisproducedstatisticallysignificantresultsshowingthat thepositionsatwhichtheconjunctions・forexample,・・however,・and・ofcourse・areused differently among the various sub-corpora and also differ significantly from a native speakers・corpus.Regardingthethirdquestion,althoughthereweredifferencesseeninthe frequencyandusageoftheaboveconjunctionsamonglearnersfrom differentmothertongue backgrounds,it could not be determined in this study whether those differences are attributabletotransferencefrom therespectivenativelanguagesofthelearners,orwhether theyaretheresultoftheEnglishlanguageeducationreceivedbythelearners,orwhether thereareotherfactorsinvolved.

(12)

ofconjunctionsby learnersofdifferentmothertonguebackgroundsaswellasby native speakersand examinethevariousfactorscontributing to differences,ultimately with the aim ofconstructing strategiestoinstructJapaneseEnglish learnerstowriteEnglish with cohesion.

References

Altenberg,B.,&Tapper,M.(1998).Theuseofadverbialconnectorsin advanced Swedish learners・ writtenEnglish.InS.Granger(Ed.),LearnerEnglishonComputer(pp.8093).London:Longman. Biber,D.,Johansson,S.,Leech,G.,Conrad,S.,&Finegan,E.(1999).Longman GrammarofSpoken

andWrittenEnglish.Harlow:PearsonEducation.

Bolton,K.,Nelson,G.,&Hung,J.(2002).A corpus-based study ofconnectorsin studentwriting: Researchfrom theInternationalCorpusofEnglishinHongKong.InternationalJournalofCorpus Linguistics,7(2),165182.

Brown,G.,&Yule,G.(1983).TeachingtheSpokenLanguage.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Campbell,K.S.(1994).Coherence,Continuity,andCohesion:TheoreticalFoundationforDocumentDesign.

New York:Routledge.

Carrell,P.L.(1982).Cohesionisnotcoherence.TESOL Quarterly,16(4),479488.

Chaudron,C.,& Parker,K.(1990).Discoursemarkednessandstructuralmarkedness.StudiesinSecond LanguageAcquisition,12(1),4364.

Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. ResearchintheTeachingofEnglish,24(1),6787.

Crewe,W.J.(1990).Theillogicoflogicalconnectives.ELT Journal,44(4),316325.

Ferris,D.R.(1994).LexicalandsyntacticfeaturesofESLwritingbystudentsatdifferentlevelsofL2 proficiency.TESOL Quarterly,28(2),414420.

Fitzgerald,J.,&Spiegel,D.L.(1986).Textualcohesion andcoherencein children・swriting.Research intheTeachingofEnglish,20(3),263280.

Flowerdew,J.,&Tauroza,S.(1995).The effectofdiscourse markers on second language lecture comprehension.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition,17(4),435458.

Granger,S.,& Tyson,S.(1996).ConnectorusageintheEnglishessaywritingofnativeandnon-native EFL speakersofEnglish.WorldEnglishes,15(1),1727.

Halliday,M.A.K.,&Hasan,R.(1976).CohesioninEnglish.London:Longman.

Hunston,S.,&Thompson,G.(Eds.)(2000).EvaluationinText:AuthorialStanceandtheConstruction ofDiscourse.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Hyland,K.(2005).Metadiscourse:Exploring Interaction in Writing (Bloomsbury Discourse).London: BloomsburyAcademic.

Kaplan,R.B.(1966).Culturalthoughtpatternsin interculturaleducation.LanguageLearning,16(1), 120.

LeechG.,&Svartvik,J.(1994).A CommunicativeGrammarofEnglish,2nd_{ed.London:Longman.}

Liu,M.,&Braine,G.(2005).Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates.System,33(4),623636.

Maxwell,M.M.,&Falick,T.(1992).Cohesion and quality in deafand hearing children・swritten English.SignLanguageStudies,77,345372.

(13)

Narita,M.,Sato,C.,& Sugiura,M.(2004).Connector usage in the English essay ofwriting of JapaneseEFL learners.In Proceedings:LREC 2004Fourth InternationalConferenceon Language ResourcesandEvaluation,11711174.

Narita,M.,& Sugiura,M.(2006).TheuseofadverbialconnectorsinargumentativeessaysbyJapanese EFL collegestudents.EnglishCorpusStudies,13,2342.

Quirk,R.,Greenbaum,S.,Leech,G.,& Svartvik,J.(1985).A ComprehensiveGrammaroftheEnglish Language.London:Longman.

Ringbom,H.(1998).VocabularyfrequenciesinadvancedlearnerEnglish:across-linguisticapproach.In S.Granger(Ed.),LearnerEnglishonComputer(pp.4152).London:Longman.

Silva,T.(1993).TowardsanunderstandingofthedistinctnatureofL2writing:TheESLResearchand ItsImplications.TESOL Quarterly,27(4),657677.

Yang,A.(1989).Cohesivechainsandwritingquality.Word,40(12),235254.

Zamel,V.(1983).Teachingthosemissinglinksinwriting.ELT Journal,37(1),2229.

Zamel,V.(1984).Teachingthosemissinglinksinwriting.InComposinginaSecondLanguage.Edited byS.Mckay.SanFranciscoStateUniversity,Cambridge:NewburyHouse.110122.