1887
Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-7031
  • E-ISSN: 1877-8798
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Current knowledge of the functional dimensions (e.g., coherence) of L2 written performance is mainly based on expert readers’ views. Non-expert native readers’ perspectives of L2 written productions are not often examined, which prevents a comprehensive and objective understanding of how an L2 writer’s performance may be perceived and evaluated by the target discourse community. Studies to date also lack clear findings of both the types of incoherence phenomena that may exist in L2 texts and the factors that may contribute to such incoherencies. The current study investigates how expert and non-expert native readers evaluate incoherence in L2 Chinese argumentative essays, as well as how their evaluations may differ quantitatively or qualitatively. The findings reveal that although expert readers marked incoherence in L2 writing significantly more frequently than non-expert readers did, expert and non-expert readers displayed similar patterns and tendencies in their judgments pertaining to the frequency with which incoherence instances appeared in the essays and in the severity of the incoherence.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cld.20018.lia
2020-11-24
2021-05-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bardovi-Harlig, K.
    1990 Pragmatic word order in English composition. InU. Connor & A. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 43–65). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Carrell, P.
    1982 Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 479–488. 10.2307/3586466
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586466 [Google Scholar]
  3. Chen, Y., & Baker, P.
    2016 Investigating criterial discourse features across second language development: Lexical bundles in rated learner essays, CEFR B1, B2 and C1. Applied Linguistics, 37, 849–880.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chiang, S.
    2003 The importance of cohesive conditions to perceptions of writing quality at the early stages of foreign language learning. System, 31, 471–484. 10.1016/j.system.2003.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2003.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  5. Connor, U.
    1990 Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 67–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Crossley, S., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D.
    2016a The tool for the automatic analysis of text cohesion (TAACO): Automatic assessment of local, global, and text cohesion. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 1227–1237. 10.3758/s13428‑015‑0651‑7
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0651-7 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2016b The development and use of cohesive devices in L2 writing and their relations to judgments of essay quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 1–16. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  8. Crossley, S., & McNamara, D.
    2011 Shared features of L2 writing: Intergroup homogeneity and text classification. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 271–285. 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2012 Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35, 2, 115–135. 10.1111/j.1467‑9817.2010.01449.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01449.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Crossley, S., Yang, H. S., & McNamara, D.
    2014 What’s so simple about simplified texts? A computational and psycholinguistic investigation of text comprehension and text processing. Reading in a Foreign Language, 26(1), 92–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cumming, A.
    1990 Expertise in evaluating second language compositions. Language Testing, 7, 31–51. 10.1177/026553229000700104
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229000700104 [Google Scholar]
  12. Eckes, T.
    2008 Rater types in writing performance assessments: A classification approach to rater variability. Language Testing, 25(2), 155–185. 10.1177/0265532207086780
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532207086780 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ferris, D.
    1994 Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 414–420. 10.2307/3587446
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587446 [Google Scholar]
  14. Guo, L., Crossley, S., & McNamara, D.
    2013 Predicting human judgments of essay quality in both integrated and independent second language writing samples: A comparison study. Assessing Writing, 18, 218–238. 10.1016/j.asw.2013.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  15. Halliday, M., & Hasan, R.
    1976Cohesion in English. London, UK: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Harman, R.
    2013 Literary intertextuality in genre-based pedagogies: Building lexical cohesion in fifth-grade L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 125–140. 10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.006 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hyland, K.
    2005Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London, UK: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jiang, W.
    2013 Measurements of development in L2 written production: The case of L2 Chinese. Applied Linguistics, 34, 1–24. 10.1093/applin/ams019
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams019 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kang, Y. J.
    2005 Written narratives as an index of L2 competence in Korean EFL learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 259–279. 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kennedy, C., & Thorp, D.
    2007 A corpus-based investigation of linguistic responses to an IELTS academic writing task. InL. Taylor & P. Falvey (Eds), IELTS collected papers: Research in speaking and writing assessment (pp. 316–377). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Knoch, U.
    2007 ‘Little coherence, considerable strain for reader’: A comparison between two rating scales for the assessment of coherence. Assessing Writing, 12(2), 108–128. 10.1016/j.asw.2007.07.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2007.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kormos, J.
    2011 Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 148–161. 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    2014 Rating written performance: What do raters do and why?Language Testing, 31, 329–348. 10.1177/0265532214526174
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214526174 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2017 Functional adequacy in L2 writing: Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34, 321–336. 10.1177/0265532216663991
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532216663991 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kuiken, F., Vedder, I., & Gilabert, R.
    2010 Communicative adequacy and linguistic complexity in L2 writing. InI. Bartning, M. Martin & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp. 81–99). Eurosla: European Second Language Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Li, S.
    2014 The gap in the use of lexical cohesive devices in writing between native Chinese speakers and second language users. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 49(3), 25–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Li, T., & Wharton, S.
    2012 Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 345–356. 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.07.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  28. Liu, M., & Braine, G.
    2005 Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 33, 623–636. 10.1016/j.system.2005.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  29. McCulley, G.
    1985 Writing quality, coherence, and cohesion. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 269–282.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. McCutchen, D.
    1996 A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299–325. 10.1007/BF01464076
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01464076 [Google Scholar]
  31. McNamara, D.
    2001 Reading both high and low coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51–62. 10.1037/h0087352
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087352 [Google Scholar]
  32. McNamara, D., Crossley, S., & McCarthy, P.
    2010 Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27, 57–86. 10.1177/0741088309351547
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309351547 [Google Scholar]
  33. McNamara, D., Crossley, S., & Roscoe, R.
    2013 Natural language processing in an intelligent writing strategy tutoring system. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 499–515. 10.3758/s13428‑012‑0258‑1
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0258-1 [Google Scholar]
  34. McNamara, D., & Kintsch, W.
    1996 Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247–288. 10.1080/01638539609544975
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544975 [Google Scholar]
  35. McNamara, D., Kintsch, E., Songer, N., & Kintsch, W.
    1996 Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43. 10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1 [Google Scholar]
  36. Neuner, J.
    1987 Cohesive ties and chains in good and poor freshman essays. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 92–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D.
    2007 Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43, 121–152. 10.1080/01638530709336895
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530709336895 [Google Scholar]
  38. Reid, J.
    1992 A computer text analysis of four cohesion devices in English discourse by native and nonnative writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 79–107. 10.1016/1060‑3743(92)90010‑M
    https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(92)90010-M [Google Scholar]
  39. Schoonen, R.
    2005 Generalizability of writing scores: an application of structural equation modeling. Language Testing, 22(1), 1–30. 10.1191/0265532205lt295oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt295oa [Google Scholar]
  40. Schoonen, R., Vergeer, M., & Eiting, M.
    1997 The assessment of writing ability: Expert readers versus lay readers. Language Testing, 14(2), 157–184. 10.1177/026553229701400203
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229701400203 [Google Scholar]
  41. Tannen, D.
    1984 Spoken and written narrative in English and Greek. InD. Tannen (Ed.). Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 21–41). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Weigle, S. C.
    2007 Teaching writing teachers about assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 194–209. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  43. Witte, S., & Faigley, L.
    1981 Coherence, cohesion, and writing ability. College Composition and Communication, 32, 189–204. 10.2307/356693
    https://doi.org/10.2307/356693 [Google Scholar]
  44. Yang, C.
    2013 Textual conjunctives and topic-fronting devices in CFL learners’ written summaries. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 48(1), 71–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Yang, W., & Sun, Y.
    2012 The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguistics and Education, 23, 31–48. 10.1016/j.linged.2011.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.09.004 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cld.20018.lia
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cld.20018.lia
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error