Knowledge of connectors as cohesion devices in text: A comparative study of native-English and English-as-a-second-language speakers.

Abstract

Readers' understanding of the functions of 4 types of logical connectors (additives, causals, adversatives, and sequentials) was examined with a multiple-choice, rational cloze procedure. Native English-language speakers and speakers of English as a second language read informational passages from which specific connectors had been removed. They selected a connector and gave verbal justifications (Experiments 1 and 3) and confidence ratings (Experiments 2 and 3). Patterns of correct responses were similar across linguistic groups: Accuracy was higher for cloze slots calling for additives or causals compared to adversatives or sequentials. Incorrect responses showed a tendency to overattribute causal relations. Incorrect responses were primarily due to failure to accurately comprehend the text. Differences in meaning and usage constraints on the 4 connector types and implications for improving English-language proficiency are discussed.

The relation of knowledge of textual integration devices to expository text comprehension under different assessment conditions

“…There are studies which explore whether participants produce well integrated texts using discourse markers (Cain, 2003;Cain, & Oakhill, 1996) or choose the best discourse marker between some options (Cain, Patson, & Andrews, 2005;Goldman, & Murray, 1992). In these cases participants have to be writers or analysts.…”

Assessing Learners’ Comprehension of Logical Connectives in L2 Texts

“…Knowledge of logical connectives was also found to facilitate comprehension of the texts from unfamiliar domains. This is because, without the sufficient content schemata, readers tend to resort to the surface aspects of the texts and linguistic devices to help them to make inferences about the relationships between propositions in the text (Goldman & Murray, 1992). Experimental data also indicate that explicit marking of coherence relations leads to faster text processing (Haberlandt, 1982;Millis & Just, 1994;Sanders & Norman, 2000) and better recall of sentence-pairs (Caron, Micko & Thuring, 1988).…”

“…Several conditions, however, must be fulfilled for this effect to take place. According to Goldman and Murray (1992), in order to take advantage of the linguistic markers in the text, readers must lack the requisite linguistic knowledge and content schema to infer implicit coherence relations. High-skilled readers with sufficient background knowledge, good understanding of the text structure, and a high level of language proficiency are able to construct coherent mental representations of the texts, even when logical relationships are not explicitly signaled.…”

Pitfalls Encountered by Bilingual Arab Learners in Translating the Arabic Discourse Marker 'θumma' into English

“…the causal fa introduces the second clause that provides the cause or the reason of the event stated in the first clause of the compound element. Consider the following example = ‫ضؼف‬ ‫انبكاء‬ ‫فاٌ‬ ‫تبك‬ ‫ال‬ ( 13 ) laa tabki fa?inna al-bukaa?a ḍa9f-un.=Don't cry because crying is weakness.…”