La cohesión en la escritura argumentativa: un estudio de caso de escritores de ensayos Pakistaníes.
Resumen
El estudio investiga el uso de elementos cohesivos y sus funciones en los ensayos argumentativos escritos por estudiantes pakistaníes. Los datos comprenden 400 ensayos argumentativos recuperados del sitio web ICNALE, analizados a través de antconc 3.4.4.0 e interpretados a través de un modelo comunicativo integral. Los resultados revelan que dichos sujetos utilizan diferentes elementos cohesivos para establecer coherencia, cohesion y organizar la información de sus ensayos; el uso de elementos de referencia es más frecuente en comparación con el uso de conjunciones, conexiones lógicas y sustituciones. El estudio concluye que los sujetos utilizan con frecuencia elementos de referencia, implicando que las directivas y el significado referencial son las funciones comunes en los ensayos argumentativos paquistaníes.
Citas
Abdelreheim, H. M. H. (2014). A Corpus-based discourse analysis of grammatical cohesive devices used in expository essays written by Emirati EFL learners at Al Ghazali school, Abu Dhabi (Doctoral dissertation), The British University in Dubai (BUiD).
Andrews, R. (1995). Teaching and learning argument. London, NY: Cassell.
Bacha, N. (2010). Teaching the academic argument in a university EFL environment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(3), 229–241.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biggs, J. (1988). Approaches to learning and to essay writing. In Learning Strategies and Learning Styles (pp. 185-228). Boston: Springer.
Connor, U., & Johns, A. M. (1990). Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), Inc., 1600 Cameron Street, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22314.
Degaetano-Ortlieb, S. (2015). Evaluative meaning and cohesion: The structuring function of evaluative meaning in scientific writing. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique. A journal of linguistics, psycholinguistics and computational linguistics, 16, 1-24.
Halliday, M. A. (1974). The place of ‘functional sentence perspective’ in the system of linguistic description. Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective, 43-53.
Halliday, M. A., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hewings, M. (2010). Materials for university essay writing. In N. Harwood (Ed.), English Language Teaching Materials (pp. 251–278). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(2), 181-209.
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press..
ICNALE: The International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English. Accessed on March, 15, 2019 from http://language.sakura.ne.jp/icnale/download.html
Jacobs, C. (2005). On being an insider on the outside: New spaces for integrating academic literacies. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(4), 475–487.
Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Long-term working memory in text production. Memory & Cognition, 29(1), 43–52.
Kuo, C. H. (1995). Cohesion and coherence in academic writing: From lexical choice to organization. RELC Journal, 26(1), 47-62.
Lea, M., & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172.
Liu, M., & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 33(4), 623-636.
Mitchell, S., & Riddle, M. (2000). Improving the quality of argument in higher education. Final Report. School of Lifelong Learning and Education: Middlesex University.
Mutch, A. (2003). Exploring the practice of feedback to students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 4(2), 24–38.
Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2006). Variation in disciplinary culture: University tutors’ views on assessed writing tasks. In R. Kiely, P. Rea-Dickins, H. Woodfield, & G. Clibbon (Eds.), Language, culture and identity in applied linguistics (pp. 99–117). London: BAAL/Equinox
Nickerson, R. S., Perkins, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (2014). The teaching of thinking. UK: Routledge.
Nilopa, L. M. (2017). Cohesive and Coherent devices on the students’ essay of English Department of IAIN Palangka Raya (Doctoral dissertation, IAIN Palangka Raya).
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum: A study in second language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richard, J., Platt, J. & Weber, H. (1985). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics. London: Longman.
Sokolik, M. (2003). Writing. In Practical English Language Teaching. (pp. 87-108). New York: McGraw Hills.
Thompson, G. & Zhou, J. 2001. Evaluation and organization in text: The structuring role of evaluative disjuncts. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 121-141). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Todd, R. W., Khongput, S., & Darasawang, P. (2007). Coherence, cohesion and comments on students’ academic essays. Assessing Writing, 12(1), 10-25.
Tsareva, A. (2010). Grammatical cohesion in argumentative essays by Norwegean and Russian learners (Master Thesis). The University of Oslo.
Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning purpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wu, S. M. (2006). Creating a contrastive rhetorical stance: Investigating the strategy of problematization in students’ argumentation. RELC Journal, 37(3), 329–353.
