%40تخفیف

COHERENCE ERRORS IN IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS’ WRITING: A RHETORICAL STRUCTURE THEORY APPROAC

Name: COHERENCE ERRORS IN IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS' WRITING: A RHETORICAL STRUCTURE THEORY APPROAC
SKU: 14819
Price: 210000 IRR
Availability: InStock

تعداد107 صفحه در فایل word

M.A. Thesis in

Teaching English as a Foreign Language

COHERENCE ERRORS IN IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS’ WRITING:
A RHETORICAL STRUCTURE THEORY APPROACH

Abstract

One of the key elements in the organization of any piece of writing is its coherence. To date, many propositions have been given regarding the definition, analysis, and evaluation of text coherence. For the purpose of the current study, Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST, Mann & Thompson, 1988) was adopted as our method of text analysis with an eye to carefully detect the coherence breaks in a sample of EFL writings. In order to see what problems Iranian EFL learners have with regard to text coherence, we analyzed 64 compositions written by male students of a language institute in Shiraz. The participants were given two writing assignments in descriptive and argumentative genres. For the analysis of relational discourse structures of the obtained data, the RSTTool for Windows was used. Our goal was to find whether there were systematic structural differences between the coherence graphs of texts that belonged to different genres. In addition, we wanted to figure out whether presence and frequency of certain relations varied in the two genres. The findings indicated that Iranian EFL learners commit eight different types of coherence errors, namely irrelevant content, violation of completedness, violation of connectedness, incorrect place, incorrect relation, crossed dependency, scattered units, and topic. The reason behind these errors partly comes from the learners’ tendency to write in an inductive order, and partly from their inability to coherently connect the constituent parts of their texts together. Genre difference is also indicated to be significant in the number of coherence relations and also in the type and number of coherence errors. In general, descriptive writing samples were more coherent than argumentative ones.

Key words:

Coherence error, rhetorical structure theory, coherence relations, genre.

دسته: زبان خارجه, زبان خارجه برچسب: Coherence error, coherence relations, genre., rhetorical structure theory

توضیحات

Content Page

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.0. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………… 2

1.1. Preliminaries………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

1.1.1. Background…………………………………………………………………………….. 2

1.1.2. What is Rhetorical Structure Theory?…………………………………….. 4

1.1.3. RST Terminology……………………………………………………………………. 6

1.2. Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………… 10

1.3. Objectives of the Study………………………………………………………………… 11

1.4. Significance of the Study……………………………………………………………… 12

1.4.1. Theoretical Significance………………………………………………………… 12

1.4.2. Practical Significance……………………………………………………………. 12

1.5. Outline and Organization of the Study………………………………………….. 13

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.0. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….. 15

2.1. Coherence…………………………………………………………………………………….. 15

2.2. Coherence Relations…………………………………………………………………….. 18

2.3. Discourse Coherence Theoretical Frameworks…………………………….. 22

2.3.1. Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) Cohesion Theory……………………… 22

2.3.2. Hobbs’ (1976) Computational Approach to

Discourse Analysis…………………………………………………………………………. 23

Content Page

2.3.3. Grosz and Sidner’s (1986) Discourse Structures

Model (DSM)………………………………………………………………………………….. 23

2.3.4. Mann and Thompson’s (1987) Rhetorical Structure

Theory (RST)………………………………………………………………………………….. 24

2.3.5. Polanyi’s (1988) Linguistic Discourse Model (LDM)…………….. 25

2.3.6. Lascarides and Asher’s (1991) Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (SDRT)………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26

2.3.7. Morris and Hirst’s (1991) Lexical Chains………………………………. 27

2.3.8. Martin’s (1992) Conjunctive Relations (CR)…………………………. 27

2.3.9. Kurohashi and Nagao’s (1994) Dependency Parser (KNP)…….. 28

2.3.10. Sperber and Wilson’s (1995) Relevance Theory………………….. 29

2.3.11. Corston’s (1998) RASTA……………………………………………………… 30

2.3.12. Grosz et al.’s (1998) Centering Theory………………………………… 30

2.3.13. Marcu’s (2000) Theory of Discourse Parsing and Summarization 30

2.3.14. Forbes et al.’s (2003) D-LTAG System………………………………… 31

2.4. Which Theory to Use?………………………………………………………………….. 32

2.5. Application of RST in Academic Writing……………………………………… 33

2.6. Attempts in Signaling Coherence Breaks………………………………………. 35

2.7. Coherence in Iranian EFL Writing………………………………………………… 40

CHAPTER THREE: DESIGN AND METHOD OF THE STUDY

3.0. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….. 45

3.1. Participants and Setting………………………………………………………………… 45

3.2. Materials………………………………………………………………………………………. 46

3.3. Data Collection…………………………………………………………………………….. 46

3.4. Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………………….. 47

3.4.1. Segmentation…………………………………………………………………………. 47

Content Page

3.4.2. Structuring…………………………………………………………………………….. 49

3.4.3. Coherence Relations……………………………………………………………… 49

3.4.4. Descriptive Statistics…………………………………………………………….. 49

3.5. Annotators……………………………………………………………………………………. 50

3.6. Reliability…………………………………………………………………………………….. 50

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.0. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….. 53

4.1. Results………………………………………………………………………………………….. 53

4.1.1. Descriptive Statistics…………………………………………………………….. 53

4.1.2. Research Question One: What are the coherence errors that Iranian EFL learners make?………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 58

4.1.3. Research Question Two: What differences exist between

the type and number of coherence errors made by EFL learners

across distinctive (descriptive vs. argumentative) genres?……………… 62

4.2. Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………. 66

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

5.0. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….. 72

5.1. Summary………………………………………………………………………………………. 72

5.2. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………. 73

5.3. Implications………………………………………………………………………………….. 75

5.3.1. Theoretical Implications………………………………………………………… 75

5.3.2. Pedagogical Implications……………………………………………………….. 76

5.4. Limitations of the Study……………………………………………………………….. 77

5.5. Suggestions for Further Research…………………………………………………. 78

Content Page

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………………….. 79

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Definitions of presentational relations; taken from www.sfu.ca/rst 90

Appendix B: Definitions of subject matter relations; taken from www.sfu.ca/rst 92

Appendix C: Definitions of multinuclear relations; taken from www.sfu.ca/rst 95

List of Tables

Title Page

Table 1.1 The evidence relation definition. 6

Table 1.2 Categorization of RST relations. 8

Table 4.1 Frequency and percentage of coherence relations…………………… 54

Table 4.2 Frequency and percentage of coherence relations
(descriptive texts)…………………………………………………………………………………… 55

Table 4.3 Frequency and percentage of coherence relations
(argumentative texts)………………………………………………………………………………. 56

Table 4.4 Result of the chi-square test for relations’ types and
frequencies by genre………………………………………………………………………………. 58

Table 4.5 Frequency and percentage of diagram abnormalities………………. 59

Table 4.6 Frequency and percentage of coherence errors across the
two genres……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 63

COHERENCE ERRORS IN IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS’ WRITING: A RHETORICAL STRUCTURE THEORY APPROAC

تعداد107 صفحه در فایل word

M.A. Thesis in

Teaching English as a Foreign Language

COHERENCE ERRORS IN IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS’ WRITING: A RHETORICAL STRUCTURE THEORY APPROACH

Abstract

Key words:

Coherence error, rhetorical structure theory, coherence relations, genre.

Table of Contents

Content Page

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.0. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………… 2

1.1. Preliminaries………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

1.1.1. Background…………………………………………………………………………….. 2

1.1.2. What is Rhetorical Structure Theory?…………………………………….. 4

1.1.3. RST Terminology……………………………………………………………………. 6

1.2. Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………… 10

1.3. Objectives of the Study………………………………………………………………… 11

1.4. Significance of the Study……………………………………………………………… 12

1.4.1. Theoretical Significance………………………………………………………… 12

1.4.2. Practical Significance……………………………………………………………. 12

1.5. Outline and Organization of the Study………………………………………….. 13

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.0. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….. 15

2.1. Coherence…………………………………………………………………………………….. 15

2.2. Coherence Relations…………………………………………………………………….. 18

2.3. Discourse Coherence Theoretical Frameworks…………………………….. 22

2.3.1. Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) Cohesion Theory……………………… 22

2.3.2. Hobbs’ (1976) Computational Approach to

Discourse Analysis…………………………………………………………………………. 23

Content Page

2.3.3. Grosz and Sidner’s (1986) Discourse Structures

Model (DSM)………………………………………………………………………………….. 23

2.3.4. Mann and Thompson’s (1987) Rhetorical Structure

Theory (RST)………………………………………………………………………………….. 24

2.3.5. Polanyi’s (1988) Linguistic Discourse Model (LDM)…………….. 25

2.3.6. Lascarides and Asher’s (1991) Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (SDRT)………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26

2.3.7. Morris and Hirst’s (1991) Lexical Chains………………………………. 27

2.3.8. Martin’s (1992) Conjunctive Relations (CR)…………………………. 27

2.3.9. Kurohashi and Nagao’s (1994) Dependency Parser (KNP)…….. 28

2.3.10. Sperber and Wilson’s (1995) Relevance Theory………………….. 29

2.3.11. Corston’s (1998) RASTA……………………………………………………… 30

2.3.12. Grosz et al.’s (1998) Centering Theory………………………………… 30

2.3.13. Marcu’s (2000) Theory of Discourse Parsing and Summarization 30

2.3.14. Forbes et al.’s (2003) D-LTAG System………………………………… 31

2.4. Which Theory to Use?………………………………………………………………….. 32

2.5. Application of RST in Academic Writing……………………………………… 33

2.6. Attempts in Signaling Coherence Breaks………………………………………. 35

2.7. Coherence in Iranian EFL Writing………………………………………………… 40

CHAPTER THREE: DESIGN AND METHOD OF THE STUDY

3.0. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….. 45

3.1. Participants and Setting………………………………………………………………… 45

3.2. Materials………………………………………………………………………………………. 46

3.3. Data Collection…………………………………………………………………………….. 46

3.4. Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………………….. 47

3.4.1. Segmentation…………………………………………………………………………. 47

Content Page

3.4.2. Structuring…………………………………………………………………………….. 49

3.4.3. Coherence Relations……………………………………………………………… 49

3.4.4. Descriptive Statistics…………………………………………………………….. 49

3.5. Annotators……………………………………………………………………………………. 50

3.6. Reliability…………………………………………………………………………………….. 50

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.0. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….. 53

4.1. Results………………………………………………………………………………………….. 53

4.1.1. Descriptive Statistics…………………………………………………………….. 53

4.1.2. Research Question One: What are the coherence errors that Iranian EFL learners make?………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 58

4.1.3. Research Question Two: What differences exist between

the type and number of coherence errors made by EFL learners

across distinctive (descriptive vs. argumentative) genres?……………… 62

4.2. Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………. 66

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

5.0. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….. 72

5.1. Summary………………………………………………………………………………………. 72

5.2. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………. 73

5.3. Implications………………………………………………………………………………….. 75

5.3.1. Theoretical Implications………………………………………………………… 75

5.3.2. Pedagogical Implications……………………………………………………….. 76

5.4. Limitations of the Study……………………………………………………………….. 77

5.5. Suggestions for Further Research…………………………………………………. 78

COHERENCE ERRORS IN IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS’ WRITING:
A RHETORICAL STRUCTURE THEORY APPROACH

Table 4.2 Frequency and percentage of coherence relations
(descriptive texts)…………………………………………………………………………………… 55

Table 4.3 Frequency and percentage of coherence relations
(argumentative texts)………………………………………………………………………………. 56

Table 4.4 Result of the chi-square test for relations’ types and
frequencies by genre………………………………………………………………………………. 58

Table 4.6 Frequency and percentage of coherence errors across the
two genres……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 63