Volume 4, Issue 4 (December 2025)
IJER 2025, 4(4): 1-17 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Pourjamali A A, Sepehri M, Shafiee S. (2025). The Impact of Teaching Cohesive Conjunction Patterns Extracted from Expository Texts Written by English Proficient Writers on Iranian EFL Learners Conjunction Patterns Usage. IJER. 4(4), 1-17. doi:10.22034/ijer.4.4.7
URL: http://ijer.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-387-en.html
URL: http://ijer.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-387-en.html
1- Department of English, ShK.C., Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
2- Department of English, ShK.C., Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran ,m.sepehri@iaushk.ac.ir
3- Department of English, ShK.C., Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
2- Department of English, ShK.C., Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran ,
3- Department of English, ShK.C., Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
Abstract: (970 Views)
Objective: This study investigates whether explicit instruction in cohesive conjunction patterns—derived from authentic English academic texts—can enhance the writing proficiency of Iranian EFL learners.
Methods: A mixed-method design combining corpus analysis and experimental instruction was used. Sixty university students were randomly assigned to an experimental group and a control group. Conjunction patterns were extracted from the British Academic Written English (BAWE) corpus based on Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) taxonomy. The control group received standard writing instruction, while the experimental group received targeted training on the identified conjunction patterns. Pre- and post-tests were administered to assess changes in the learners’ writing performance.
Results: Students in the experimental group showed significant improvement in their use of varied and rhetorically effective conjunctions, particularly adversative and causal links, while reducing overuse of basic additive forms. Statistical analyses confirmed that these improvements were significant and not attributable to chance. The quality of writing improved not through the sheer number of cohesive devices but through their strategic and context-appropriate use.
Conclusions: Targeted instruction using authentic academic texts meaningfully enhances EFL learners’ coherence, analytical depth, and overall writing quality. These findings support integrating corpus-derived models and conjunction-focused instruction into EFL writing curricula to promote more effective academic writing.
Methods: A mixed-method design combining corpus analysis and experimental instruction was used. Sixty university students were randomly assigned to an experimental group and a control group. Conjunction patterns were extracted from the British Academic Written English (BAWE) corpus based on Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) taxonomy. The control group received standard writing instruction, while the experimental group received targeted training on the identified conjunction patterns. Pre- and post-tests were administered to assess changes in the learners’ writing performance.
Results: Students in the experimental group showed significant improvement in their use of varied and rhetorically effective conjunctions, particularly adversative and causal links, while reducing overuse of basic additive forms. Statistical analyses confirmed that these improvements were significant and not attributable to chance. The quality of writing improved not through the sheer number of cohesive devices but through their strategic and context-appropriate use.
Conclusions: Targeted instruction using authentic academic texts meaningfully enhances EFL learners’ coherence, analytical depth, and overall writing quality. These findings support integrating corpus-derived models and conjunction-focused instruction into EFL writing curricula to promote more effective academic writing.
Type of Study: Original |
Subject:
Educational Studies
Received: 2025/05/12 | Accepted: 2025/07/19 | Published: 2025/12/1
Received: 2025/05/12 | Accepted: 2025/07/19 | Published: 2025/12/1
References
1. Bahaziq, A. (2016). Cohesive devices in written discourse: A discourse analysis of a student's essay writing. English Language Teaching, 9(7), 112-119. [DOI:10.5539/elt.v9n7p112]
2. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511804489]
3. Coniam, D. (1994). Using corpus-based analysis for testing. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 17, 1-10.
4. Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213-238. [DOI:10.2307/3587951]
5. Coxhead, A. (2002). The academic word list: A corpus-based word list for academic purposes. In B. Kettemann & G. Marko (Eds.), Teaching and learning by doing corpus analysis (pp. 73-89). Rodopi. [DOI:10.1163/9789004334236_008]
6. De Beaugrande, R. A., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. Longman. [DOI:10.4324/9781315835839]
7. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.
8. Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process. Oxford University Press.
9. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122-128. [DOI:10.2307/356095]
10. Fazl-Ali, H. (1995). An analysis of ellipsis in Persian short stories: A Hallidayan perspective (Unpublished M.A. thesis). Shiraz University.
11. Fitria, N., Fauzi, M., Zahra, C. M., Usman, M., & Usman, B. (2024). Exploring strategies to foster cohesion and coherence in EFL writing: A focus on Simple View of Writing.
12. Grimshaw, A. D. (1990). Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. Cambridge University Press.
13. Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and written language (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
14. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
15. Leech, G. (1997). Teaching and language corpora: A convergence. In A. Wichmann, S. Fligelstone, T. McEnery, & G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and language corpora (pp. 1-23). Longman. [DOI:10.4324/9781315842677-1]
16. Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1994). Students' perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needs across the disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 81-101. [DOI:10.2307/3587199]
17. Liu, M., & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 33(4), 623-636. [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2005.02.002]
18. MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (2016). Handbook of writing research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
19. McCarthy, M. (1987). Language and discourse. Longman.
20. Mederos Martín, M. (1988). La cohesión textual en español e inglés: Estudio contrastivo. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 4, 121-135.
21. Meyer, C. F. (2002). English corpus linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511606311]
22. Mohammed, A. A. (2015). The effect of cohesive devices on the quality of writing. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(35), 104-110.
23. Seddigh, F., Shokr-Pour, H., & Kafi-Pour, H. (2010). A contrastive study of lexical cohesion in English and Persian abstracts. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 1-28.
24. Shillaw, J. (1994). Developing and using a corpus of student writing. ICAME Journal, 18, 47-60.
25. Simmons, R. (1981). Text cohesion and coherence in Russian. Slavic and East European Journal, 25(3), 51-65. [DOI:10.2307/307957]
26. Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.
27. Siregar, F. L., Siahaan, S., & Pardede, H. (2023). An analysis of cohesive devices used in Indonesian EFL learners' essays. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 14(2), 452-460.
28. Siregar, J., Nurlela, N., & Zein, T. (2023). An analysis of cohesive devices in EFL students' essay writing. Universitas Sumatera Utara Institutional Repository. https://dupakdosen.usu.ac.id/handle/123456789/8122 [DOI:10.21462/ijefl.v8i1.577]
29. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1995). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. University of Michigan Press. [DOI:10.2307/358319]
30. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students (3rd ed.). University of Michigan Press. [DOI:10.3998/mpub.2173936]
31. Tabari, M. A., & Johnson, M. D. (2023). Exploring new insights into the role of cohesive devices in written academic genres. Assessing Writing, 56, 100744. [DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2023.100744]
32. Tabari, M., & Johnson, D. (2023). The effect of genre on cohesion in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 63, 101240. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101240]
33. Yang, W., & Sun, Y. (2012). The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL university students. Asian Social Science, 8(15), 127-135. [DOI:10.5539/ass.v8n15p127]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International. |
