A Corpus-Based Contrastive Analysis of Cohesive Devices in Academic Writing: Insights from Arab and English Research Articles in Education and Medicine

محورهای موضوعی :

Raghda Naeem Khudhair Al-Mshakhee ¹ , Sousan Sattar Boroujeni ² , Haider Hussein Katea Khanjar ³ , Bahram Hadian ⁴

1 - Department of English, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
2 - English Department, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran
3 - Department of English, Thi-Qar University, Nasirya, Iraq
4 - Department of English, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

تاریخ دریافت : 1403/08/23 تاریخ پذیرش : 1403/10/02 تاریخ انتشار : 1403/12/21

کلید واژه: Cohesion, contrastive analysis, corpus linguistics, academic writing, EFL instruction,

چکیده مقاله :

This study investigated cohesive devices in AEW and NEW texts through a comparative case study indicating patterns in their convergence. This was done through Halliday and Hasan's (1976) model with examples of grammatical and lexical cohesion in Education and Medicine. It drew on a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature and made use of AntConc software to help quantify the numbers of cohesive devices in different contexts. The findings indicated sig-nificant cultural and linguistic impacts on cohesion use. Native-English writers of Arabic back-ground often made use of repetition and third-person pronouns, following the rhetorical tradi-tions of Arabic, which emphasize thematic coherence. Conversely, native English writers made more use of collocation, lexical variety, and clear logical connectors, adhering to Western norms of clarity and linear development. These findings have a number of implications. The findings, therefore, imply a need for tailored EFL instruction in which the cultural preferences of the Ar-ab learners are aligned with the English academic norms. Educators should adopt strategies that will also promote the use of cohesive ties, such as collocations and conjunctions, showing re-spect for the rhetorical identity of the Arab students. Tools like AntConc will help students to improve their writing and make them more self-aware of their writing. The greatest non-pedagogical value of this study would be its contribution to cross-cultural understanding in aca-demic writing. The findings also enhance the understanding of cohesion in academic writing and provide practical suggestions on how to improve EFL instruction and effective cross-cultural communication in today's interconnected academic landscape.

چکیده انگلیسی:

This study investigated cohesive devices in AEW and NEW texts through a comparative case study indicating patterns in their convergence. This was done through Halliday and Hasan's (1976) model with examples of grammatical and lexical cohesion in Education and Medicine. It drew on a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature and made use of AntConc software to help quantify the numbers of cohesive devices in different contexts. The findings indicated sig-nificant cultural and linguistic impacts on cohesion use. Native-English writers of Arabic back-ground often made use of repetition and third-person pronouns, following the rhetorical tradi-tions of Arabic, which emphasize thematic coherence. Conversely, native English writers made more use of collocation, lexical variety, and clear logical connectors, adhering to Western norms of clarity and linear development. These findings have a number of implications. The findings, therefore, imply a need for tailored EFL instruction in which the cultural preferences of the Ar-ab learners are aligned with the English academic norms. Educators should adopt strategies that will also promote the use of cohesive ties, such as collocations and conjunctions, showing re-spect for the rhetorical identity of the Arab students. Tools like AntConc will help students to improve their writing and make them more self-aware of their writing. The greatest non-pedagogical value of this study would be its contribution to cross-cultural understanding in aca-demic writing. The findings also enhance the understanding of cohesion in academic writing and provide practical suggestions on how to improve EFL instruction and effective cross-cultural communication in today's interconnected academic landscape.

منابع و مأخذ:

Abu-Rabia, S., & Shany, M. (2013). The effect of culture on the use of cohe-sive devices in writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 123–135.
Al-Ali, M. (2017). Cohesion in Arabic aca-demic writing: A contrastive analysis. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 45–60.
Al-Ruwayshed, A. (2012). Cohesive devic-es in Arabic and English: A compara-tive study. Arab World English Jour-nal, 3(3), 56–73.
Barton, E. (2013). Cohesion and coherence in academic writing: A study of Eng-lish and Arabic texts. Journal of Lan-guage Teaching and Research, 4(5), 1001–1010.
Betti, F., & AlFartoosy, A. (2019). Reitera-tion and lexical cohesion in academic writing: A comparative study. Inter-national Journal of Language Stud-ies, 13(4), 67–82.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cam-bridge grammar of English: A com-prehensive guide. Cambridge Univer-sity Press.
Cho, H., & Shin, D. (2014). The role of co-hesive devices in academic writing: Insights from Korean EFL learners. Asian EFL Journal, 16(1), 45–67.
Coulmas, F. (1992). The writing systems of the world. Blackwell.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of lan-guage. Longman.
Flowerdew, J. (1999). Academic listening: Research perspectives. TESOL Quar-terly, 33(3), 407–412.
Fitriati, R., & Yonata, Y. (2017). Cohesion and coherence in English texts: A study on Indonesian students’ writ-ings. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 245–254.
Ghazala, H. (2008). Translation as prob-lems and solutions. Dar Al-Ma’aref.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
Hidayat, S. (2016). The role of conjunctions in achieving coherence in written dis-course. Journal of Linguistics and Literature, 5(2), 34–45.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer re-sponsibility: A new typology. In T. Miller (Ed.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on academic discourse (pp. 55–70). University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Explor-ing interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K., & Shaw, P. (2016). The im-portance of coherence in academic writing: Evidence from a corpus-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 1–12.
Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Cultural thought pat-terns in intercultural education. In Language and culture (pp. 9–24). University Press of America.
Kuo, C.-L. (2013). Cohesion in academic writing: A contrastive study between Chinese and English texts. Interna-tional Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 45–60.
Liu, J. (2006). Cohesion and coherence in Chinese EFL learners' writing: A con-trastive analysis with native speakers' writing. Asian EFL Journal, 8(4), 40–54.
Nunan, D. (1993). Introducing discourse analysis. Routledge.
Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2006). Writing academic English. Pearson Longman.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. A. (2001). Intercultural communication: A dis-course approach. Blackwell Publish-ing.
Smith, R., Garcia, P., & Lee, J. (2021). Pro-fessional development for EFL teach-ers: Bridging the gap in pragmatics in-struction. TESOL Quarterly, 55(2), 300–320.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Aca-demic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. University of Michigan Press.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Pragmatic competence in English as a foreign language: A review of the literature and implica-tions for teaching. Language Teach-ing Research, 19(4), 435–454.
Tanawong, K. (2014). Collocation and lexi-cal cohesion. International Journal of Language Studies, 8(1), 15–24.
Wang, L. (2009). Cohesion and coherence in academic writing. Asian EFL Jour-nal, 11(4), 25–38.
Yakhontova, T. (2001). Cross-cultural communication in academic dis-course. Journal of Language and Culture, 3(2), 12–20.
Zamel, V. (1997). Toward a model of trans-culturation. In C. Connor (Ed.), Writ-ing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric. Routledge.