英语应用语言学论文,英文论文Word版

An Analysis of Cohesion in Chinese and Native American’s

Argumentative Writing

1.Defining Key Terms

Cohesion and Coherence

Cohesion and coherence are important terms in the study of text analysis. Halliday and Hasan view the concept of cohesion as”a semantic one” (Cohesion 4). They also define the term as “Relations of meaning that exist within the text, and that define it as a text.” (Cohesion 4) In their later book, Language, Context and Text, Halliday and Hasan define cohesion and coherence as “Every text is also a context for itself. A text is characterized by Coherence, An important contribution to coherence comes from cohesion: the set of linguistic resources that every language has for linking one part of a text to another.”(48).

In a word, Coherence can be created by cohesion in the way of adding some implicit meaning. As for the definition of both terms, the author agrees with Halliday and Hasan’s point of view. And this paper employs Halliday’s approach in the analysis of cohesion

2.Data Collection and Analysis

2.1 Data collection

This paper is based on analysis of two argumentative writings. The topic of both essays is the debate of drinking age. The first argumentation chosen as data is a FLC freshman’s homework assignment in a key normal university from Zhejiang province. And the second essay in the data is written by John M. McCardell Jr. from https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec9933954.html,. Although the two texts vary from length and perspectives of arguments, they do share the same point of view on limiting drinking age, also, the priority being to compare the

cohesion in data. Some deviations like grammar mistakes in texts may possibly exist but they will not affect the results and findings. The data to be analyzed in this paper is in the appendix.

The intentions of choosing and analyzing argumentative writing as data in this paper are as follows. Firstly, argumentative writing comprised a large portion of the writing part in Chinese high school English test. Secondly, correlation studies on this type of writing are rare. As a pre-service teacher, it would be beneficial for the author to study this writing type and employ the findings into future teaching career.

2.2 Methods on data analysis

This paper employed Halliday’s categories of cohesion (Cohesion 333-339) to analyze data. The methodology of analysis is as follows:

1.Identify the cohesive items in each sentence.

2.Figure out the cohesion type

https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec9933954.html,pare the results in two texts and find differences

The types of cohesion in data are showed in two tables in the part of results of analysis.

3.Results and Discussion

3.1 Results of analysis

After the analysis of two texts, the author found that differences of cohesive items and types are obvious.

Firstly, the cohesive items in text 1 are relatively diversified as different words and expressions like “it” and “that” are used to create text coherence. However, the cohesive items in text 2 are severely repeated, the items “you” and “I” make up a large part in total cohesive items of this text. Secondly, the richness in types of cohesion is different in two texts. The types are almost totally different in text 1 while the result is opposite in text 2. The monotonicity of cohesion types in text 2 may partly be related to the cohesive items. However, in

text 2, the bonded sentences are mostly adjacent pairs and simple lexical repetition is used most frequently; in text 1, the bonded sentences for certain cohesive items are not adjacent. Thirdly, there is a significant difference between the two text s’ rate of using paraphrases. Expressions like “The statement” and “the answer” are used in text 1 in order to refer to longer sentences or the phrases in different parts of the text. However, text 2 lacks of richness in the usage of paraphrase.

3.2 Reasons of cohesive distinctions between two essays

The distinction of cohesive items and types are obvious after comparing the two tables. Reasons for the variation are to be discussed in following passages.

Firstly, the cohesive items in two texts are varied. After close reading of text 2, the author found the defect is totally avoidable by replacing repeated words for cohesive items or lengthening sentences in the way of combining short sentences into longer ones. The monotonous of cohesive items and types are partly due to the Chinese ways of thinking as Chinese people view repetition as an aesthetic object of language. In addition, it is universal for an English word to have inflections and derivatives, which might contribute to the variation of cohesive items in text 1(native writer). However, Chinese writer (nonnative writer) may have troubles in dealing with that. The limitedness of vocabulary for Chinese writers affected their choice of words deeply.

Secondly, the richness in types of cohesion is varied in two texts. Native speakers are skilled in making connections between what they are currently saying and what they said before and use different cohesive items to attain the aim, regardless of the distance of two bonded items. However, Chinese writer may lack the ability in doing that. He or she tends to think the whole passage in Chinese, and then interpret it into English when writing it down. It’s not easy for nonnative speakers to command the English way of logical thinking, still, thinking in English is essential for English learners to advance their English language ability.

Thirdly, there is a significant difference between the two text s’ rate of using paraphrases. The problem of monotonicity in cohesive items in text 2 can be avoided if writer use some paraphrases to replace the items like “I”and “you”. The reasons for this problem may come from the influence of mother tongue Chinese. It may also have something to do with writer’s vocabulary learning habits.

3.2 Implications for teaching of EFL argumentative writing

Argumentative writing is an important writing style for high school students to command and comprise a large proportion of writing tests. Generally speaking, there are three factors that influence students' writing ability: Logic thinking, language knowledge and writing skill. The results and analysis of cohesive problems accrued in Chinese student’s writing can be applied to argumentative writing teaching in high school. The implications for argumentative writing teaching are as follows.

Firstly, it can be seen from the analysis that native writer tend to use far more complex cohesive items and fewer simple lexical repetition than Chinese student writings. This is caused by people's logical thinking, which is a very complicated factor. It mainly refers to student's life and studying background. Mostly, Chinese students are likely to translate their ideas from Chinese into English in the process of writing unconsciously. As a result, they tend to use the same words over and over again without the awareness of different cohesive devices. Therefore the number of cohesive items used in argumentative writing is limited. And most cohesive items used are of a monotonous type and lacking variety.

Wherefore it’s important for teachers to focus on the coherence of discourse when teaching English writing. Some suggestions may be helpful: Teachers should pay attention to the coherence of passages in text books when giving reading classes. Reading and writing complement each other as the former emphasizes input and latter one focuses on output; Teachers can expose students to western cultures and try to train students the western ways of logical thinking if time permits. These trainings will also enhance students’ reading speed.

Secondly, language knowledge is also a crucial fact for students to improve their argumentative writing. It mainly concerns about English vocabulary and grammar. Argumentative essay is relatively academic compared with other forms of writing as the words and phrases are mainly illustrative, not descriptive. In order to improve students’ writing ability, teachers can hold debate competitions in class to enlarge students’ vocabulary for argumentative writing.

Finally, writing skills or so called “the ability of d iscourse”is of great importance in teaching writing. Coherence ability determines whether students' writing is a good one. Consequently, in teaching writing skills, teachers should develop students' writing ability. Teachers can analyze the coherence of texts when explaining reading comprehensions and it can attract students’ attention on the coherence of texts and focus on the issue when they write essays.

For Chinese high school students, English cohesion is hard to attain as they are easily affected by mother tongue Chinese. So teachers should play an important role in constructing their knowledge in coherence and cohesion. (1653 words)

References

Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan. Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group Limited, 1976

Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Melbourne: Deakin University Press, 1985

Johnstone, B. Discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Malden: Blackwell, 2008 Nicholas, R. “Lexical cohesion in academic writing.”Modern English teacher 23.1 (2014): 59-62

胡壮麟.“有关语篇衔接理论多层次模式的思考”，《上海外国语大学学报》1996年第1期，第1-8页。

[Hu Zhuangling. “A Study on cohesion relation at various levels”Journal of Foreign Languages (1), 1996:1-8.]

Appendix

Text1:

But it's not 1984 anymore(1).

This statement may seem obvious, but not necessarily (2). In 1984 Congress passed and the president signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act (3). The Act, which raised the drinking age to 21 under threat of highway fund withholding, sought to address the problem of drunken driving fatalities. (4)And indeed, that problem was serious(5).

States that lowered their ages during the 1970s and did nothing else to prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol witnessed an alarming increase in alcohol-related traffic fatalities (6). It was as though the driving age were lowered but no drivers education were provided (7). The results were predictable (8).

Now, 25 years later, we are in a much different, and better, place (9). Thanks to the effective public advocacy of organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, we are far more aware of the risks of drinking and driving (10). Automobiles are much safer (11).

Seatbelts and airbags are mandatory (12). The "designated driver" is now a part of our vocabulary (13). And more and more states are mandating ignition interlocks for first-time DUI offenders, perhaps the most effective way to get drunken drivers off the road (14).

Text2:

Some people say that drinking alcohol can embolden, which I think is nonsense (1). Now you are drunk, I walked by and stand in front of you (2). You stared at me (3). At this moment I’m one person in your eye(4). But the next second I am doubled in your eye (5). And your little heart almost stopped beating because I’m a wizard you see (6). OK, I’m not goanna eat you or kill you for good (7). But you almost committed suicide (8). And this is all because you drank too much (9).

So what I say then, should there be a drinking age (10)? The answer is obvious (11). Yes, we need this drinking age (12). There are some reasons (13).

The Full texts:

Native American’s work:

Commentary: Drinking age of 21 doesn't work

One year ago, a group of college and university presidents and chancellors, eventually totaling 135, issued a statement that garnered

national attention.

The "Amethyst Initiative" put a debate proposition before the public -- "Resolved: That the 21-year-old drinking age is not working." It offered, in much the way a grand jury performs its duties, sufficient evidence for putting the proposition to the test. It invited informed and dispassionate public debate and committed the signatory institutions to encouraging that debate. And it called on elected officials not to continue assuming that, after 25 years, the status quo could not be challenged, even improved.

One year later, the drinking age debate continues, and new research reinforces the presidential impulse. Just this summer a study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry revealed that, among college-age males, binge drinking is unchanged from its levels of 1979; that among non-college women it has increased by 20 percent; and that among college women it has increased by 40 percent. Remarkably, the counterintuitive conclusion drawn by the investigators, and accepted uncritically by the media, including editorials in The New York Times and The Washington Post is that the study proves that raising the drinking age to 21 has been a success.

More recently, a study of binge drinking published in the Journal of the American Medical Association announced that "despite efforts at prevention, the prevalence of binge drinking among college students is continuing to rise, and so are the harms associated with it."

Worse still, a related study has shown that habits formed at 18 die hard: "For each year studied, a greater percentage of 21- to 24-year-olds [those who were of course once 18, 19 and 20] engaged in binge drinking and driving under the influence of alcohol."

Yet, in the face of mounting evidence that those young adults age 18 to 20 toward whom the drinking age law has been directed are routinely -- indeed in life- and health-threatening ways -- violating it, there remains a belief in the land that a minimum drinking age of 21 has been a "success." And elected officials are periodically reminded of a provision in the 1984 law that continues to stifle any serious public debate in our country's state legislative chambers: Any state that sets its drinking age lower than 21 forfeits 10 percent of its annual federal highway appropriation.

But it's not 1984 anymore(1).

This statement may seem obvious, but not necessarily (2). In 1984 Congress passed and the president signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act (3). The Act, which raised the drinking age to 21 under threat of highway fund withholding, sought to address the problem of drunken driving fatalities. And indeed, that problem was serious(4).

States that lowered their ages during the 1970s and did nothing else to prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol

witnessed an alarming increase in alcohol-related traffic fatalities (5). It was as though the driving age were lowered but no drivers education were provided (6). The results were predictable (7).

Now, 25 years later, we are in a much different, and better, place (8). Thanks to the effective public advocacy of organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, we are far more aware of the risks of drinking and driving (9). Automobiles are much safer (10).

Seatbelts and airbags are mandatory (11). The "designated driver" is now a part of our vocabulary (12). And more and more states are mandating ignition interlocks for first-time DUI offenders, perhaps the most effective way to get drunken drivers off the road (13).

And the statistics are encouraging. Alcohol-related fatalities have declined over the last 25 years. Better still, they have declined in all age groups, though the greatest number of deaths occurs at age 21, followed by 22 and 23. We are well on the way to solving a problem that vexed us 25 years ago.

The problem today is different. The problem today is reckless, goal-oriented alcohol consumption that all too often takes place in clandestine locations, where enforcement has proven frustratingly difficult. Alcohol consumption among young adults is not taking place in public places or public view or in the presence of other adults who might help model responsible behavior. But we know it is taking place.

If not in public, then where? The college presidents who signed the Amethyst Initiative know where. It happens in "pre-gaming" sessions in locked dorm rooms where students take multiple shots of hard alcohol in rapid succession, before going to a social event where alcohol is not served. It happens in off-campus apartments beyond college boundaries and thus beyond the presidents' authority; and it happens in remote fields to which young adults must drive.

And the Amethyst presidents know the deadly result: Of the 5,000 lives lost to alcohol each year by those under 21, more than 60 percent are lost OFF the roadways, according to the National Institute of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse.

The principal problem of 2009 is not drunken driving. The principal problem of 2009 is clandestine binge drinking.

That is why the Amethyst presidents believe a public debate is so urgent. The law does not say drink responsibly or drink in moderation. It says don't drink. To those affected by it, those who in the eyes of the law are, in every other respect legal adults, it is Prohibition. And it is incomprehensible.

The principal impediment to public debate is the 10 percent highway penalty. That penalty should be waived for those states that choose to try something different, which may turn out to be something better. But merely adjusting the age -- up or down -- is not really the way to make

a change.

We should prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol in the same way we prepare them to operate a motor vehicle: by first educating and then licensing, and permitting them to exercise the full privileges of adulthood so long as they demonstrate their ability to observe the law.

Licensing would work like drivers education -- it would involve a permit, perhaps graduated, allowing the holder the privilege of purchasing, possessing and consuming alcohol, as each state determined, so long as the holder had passed an alcohol education course and observed the alcohol laws of the issuing state.

Most of the rest of the world has come out in a different place on the drinking age. The United States is one of only four countries -- the others are Indonesia, Mongolia and Palau -- with an age as high as 21. All others either have no minimum age or have a lower age, generally 18, with some at 16.

Young adults know that. And, in their heart of hearts, they also know that a law perceived as unjust, a law routinely violated, can over time breed disrespect for law in general.

Slowly but surely we may be seeing a change in attitude. This summer, Dr. Morris Chafetz, a distinguished psychiatrist, a member of the presidential commission that recommended raising the drinking age, and the founder of the National Institute for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse admitted that supporting the higher drinking age is "the most regrettable decision of my entire professional career." This remarkable statement did not receive the attention it merited.

Alcohol is a reality in the lives of young adults. We can either try to change the reality -- which has been our principal focus since 1984, by imposing Prohibition on young adults 18 to 20 -- or we can create the safest possible environment for the reality.

A drinking age minimum of 21 has not changed the reality. It's time to try something different.

It's not 1984 anymore.

About the author: John M. McCardell Jr., president emeritus at Middlebury College, is founder and president of Choose Responsibility, a nonprofit organization that seeks to engage the public in debate over the effects of the 21-year-old drinking age.

From CNN Politics

https://www.360docs.net/doc/ec9933954.html,/2009/POLITICS/09/16/mccardell.lower.drinking.a ge/

Chinese Student’s work:

Should There Be a Drinking Age

Some people say that drinking alcohol can embolden, which I think is nonsense (1). Now you are drunk, I walked by and stand in front of you (2). You stared at me (3). At this moment I’m one person in your eye(4). But the next second I am doubled in your eye (5). And your little heart almost stopped beating because I’m a wizard you see (6). OK, I’m not goanna eat you or kill you for good (7). But you almost committed suicide (8). And this is all because you drank too much (9).

So what I say then, should there be a drinking age (10)? The answer is obvious (11). Yes, we need this drinking age (12). There are some reasons (13).

Firstly, most teenagers under the age of 21 are still in school, whose main task is to study. We know people easily get excited after drink alcohol. What’s more, the self-control ability of teens is quite low. So they can’t focus on their study and it’s no good for their future. Many years have seen some talented teens ruined by alcohol. So it would make better for teens’ future if there be a drinking age.

Secondly, it will control the drunken driving accidents. In china, teens can ge t their driver’s license at the age of 18. And I can still remember this, when my cousin got his license, he grabbed his father’s car key and said: Hey, let’s go get a drink. Luckily, we didn’t go to the bar, we went shopping instead. But for me, my cousin’s word is still in my head. If some teens really go for a drink after they get the license, the road will be totally messed up.

Thirdly, in China, teens often have no income, and drinking needs money, it will cost more, which requires the more support of the parents. Thus it will increase the burden of the family, especial family situation is not good, and the students might be forced to drop-out. What’s more, they will not know how to cherish in this way.

Well, it seems that alcohol will ruin teens’ future if we don’t set a limit on this. That is to say, it will ruin our future. Because teens means our future. How can we let the stupid alcohol ruin the world? So let’s set a drinking age.