Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research
Larbi Ben M'hidi University-Oum El Bouaghi
Faculty of Letters and Foreign Languages Department of English
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master in Didactics
By: Miss.Nadjma KHETTABI Supervisor: Mr. Hadj BOURI Examiner: Mme. GENDOUZ
2017-2018
A Corpus Based Study on the Use of Linking Adverbials in Master Dissertations:
A Case of Literature Review Sections Written by Graduate Students of Language Sciences Stream in the Department of English, L’Arbi Ben
M’Hidi University
I
Dedication
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, Most Merciful, All the Praise is due to him alone, the Sustainer of the entire world.
First of all, I give my gratitude to the most graceful and most compassionate ALLAH the almighty that has provided me with uncounted blessing to finish this work.
I dedicate this work to:
My mother and my father, source of my happiness and success in life.
(May Allah bless them).
To my sisters, my brothers, and my cousins for their patience, encouragement, and unending support they provided me with.
To all my friends who stay with me in the worst and the best moments.
II
Acknowledgement
This works could not be completed without the help of my teacher and supervisor Mr. Bouri Hadj; to whom I would express my truthful thanks. I am so grateful for his help,
encouragement, patience, kindness, and understanding.
I would like also to thank him for the best advice, he provided me with throughout the stages of the research.
I would like to thank Mme. Gendouz for her acceptance to read this work, and for any remarks she would make to refine it.
III
Abstract
This dissertation is concerned with the most important lexical items used by researchers to arrange their ideas; that are linking adverbials. Besides, they used to link semantically between the different parts of a discourse. Thus, this study is made for analyzing the use of these linking devices in literature reviews in the department of English at L’Arbi Ben M’hidi University OEB. A total corpus of 10 master theses was tallied to investigate the most linking adverbials used by graduated students of language sciences stream while writing the literature review section. For the sake of carrying out this research, AntConc, and Excel programs were used. After gathering the data, they were classifying according to Huddleston & Pullum (2002) classification of linking adverbials. The results illustrate that graduate students used some linking devices repeatedly and ignore others. Consequently, this low of proficiency is reflected to the limited vocabulary of most of the students in one hand, and the little importance the teachers give to these lexical elements in another hand.
In regard, to the significant role these lexical items play in the writing proficiency; they should be implemented in future curriculum designs.
Key words: Linking adverbials, literature review.
IV
List of Abbreviations ELT: English Language Teaching
ICLE: International Corpus of Learner English LAD: Linking Adverbials
LR: Literature Review
LSS: Language Sciences Stream MA: Master
OEB: Oum El Bouaghi
V
List of Figures
Figure 1: The System of Conjunction by Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) Figure 2: Quirk et al. (1985) Classification of Linking Adverbials
Figure 3: Biber et al. (1999) Classification (1999) of Linking Adverbials Figure 4: The Frequency of Linking Adverbials in L1
Figure 5: The Frequency of Linking Adverbials in L2 Figure 6: The Frequency of Linking Adverbials in L3 Figure 7: The Frequency of Linking Adverbials in L4 Figure 8: The Frequency of Linking Adverbials in L5 Figure 9: The Frequency of Linking Adverbials in L6 Figure 10: The Frequency of Linking Adverbials in L7 Figure 11: The Frequency of Linking Adverbials in L8 Figure 12: The Frequency of Linking Adverbials in L9 Figure 13: The Frequency of Linking Adverbials in L10 Figure 14: The Total Frequency of LAD in the Whole Corpus
VI
List of Tables Table 1: Taxonomy of Literature Review
Table 2: The Most Frequent Linking Adverbials and Percentages Used in L1 Table 3: The Frequency and Percentage of LAD in L2
Table 4: The Frequency and Percentages of LAD in L3 Table 5: The Frequency and Percentages of LAD in L4 Table 6: The Frequency and Percentages of LAD in L5 Table 7: The Frequency and Percentages of LAD in L6 Table 8: The Frequency and Percentages of LAD in L7 Table 9: The Frequency and Percentages of LAD in L8 Table 10: The Frequency and Percentages of LAD in L9 Table 11: The Frequency and Percentages of LAD in L10
Table 12: The Most Frequent Category of LAD in the Whole Corpus
VII
Table of contents
Content Page
Dedication ………. I Acknowledgements………. II Abstract ………...III List of Abbreviations ………..IV List of Figures ……….. V List of Tables……….VII
General Introduction………..1
Rational for the Study……….1
Statement of the Problem………....1
Aim of the Study………..2
Research questions & Hypothesis ………..2
Significance of the study………..3
Methodology and Design of the Study………....3
1. The Corpora………3
2. The Method ………3
Structure of the Study………...4
Chapter One: Linking Adverbials in LR Sections Introduction………6
1.1. The Role of LAD in Textual Cohesion...7
1.1.1. The Concept of Cohesion……….7
1.1.2. Understanding Linking Adverbials……….10
1.1.3. Terminology of Linking Adverbials………12
VIII
1.1.4. Classifications of Linking Adverbials………12
1.1.4.1. Pure Connectives………..15
1.1.4.2. Impure Connectives……….16
Conclusion ……….. 17
1.2.Reviewing the Literature in Academic Research…………... 18
Introduction……… 18
1.2.1. Definition of Literature Review………..18
1.2.2. Steps Involved in Writing LR………19
1.2.3. Taxonomy of LR………..20
1.2.4. Elements of LR ……….23
1.2.5. Purposes of LR ……….23
Conclusion ………..24
1.3. Corpus Linguistics Analysis...25
Introduction ……….25
1.3.1. Definition of Corpus Linguistics………25
1.3.2. Historical Background of Corpus Linguistics ………25
1.3.3. Features of Corpus Linguistics ………26
1.3.4. Types of Corpus Linguistics………27
Conclusion ……….28
Chapter Two: Data Analysis and Results’ Discussions Introduction ………31
2.1. Research Methodology………31
2.1.1. Sampling Method………..31
2.1.2. Corpus Compilation………..31
IX
2.1.2.1. The Selection of the Corpus ………..31
2.1.2.2. Methods and analytical procedures ………... 32
2.2. Data analysis and Interpretations……….. 33
2.2.1. Analysis of LSS MA theses………... .33
2.1.1. L1 Analysis………34
2.2.1.2. L2 Analysis………36
2.2.1.3. L3 Analysis………38
2.2.1.4. L4 Analysis………...40
2.2.1.5. L5 Analysis ……… 42
2.2.1.6. L6 Analysis………..44
2. 2.1.7. L7 Analysis………..46
2.2.1.8. L8 Analysis ………...48
2.2.1.9. L9 Analysis………50
2.2.1.10. L10 Analysis………52
2.3. Discussion of Findings of LSS ………...53
2.4. Summary of the Findings ……….55
General Conclusion ………...56
Pedagogical Implications ………..56
Limitations of the study ………56
Suggestions for Further Studies...57
Bibliography ...58 Appendix
Résumé ﺺﺨﻠﻤﻟا
1
General Introduction Rational for the Study
Writing is one of the most important skills in teaching English as a foreign language.
To have a good style in writing requires the accurate use of linking adverbials. The latter is considered as the significant issue in writing on the one hand, and academic research in another hand. It is arguable by most grammarians that these lexical items have a great function to achieve textual cohesion, because they used to link ideas or clauses with different length in spoken discourse and written texts. In addition, they enable the writer to connect between what said previously, and what is coming after.
Thus, they are used by researchers to arrange their ideas semantically, to achieve cohesion.
Statement of the Problem
Textual cohesion becomes a crucial element in writing literature review sections while conducting one’s research. Many researchers claimed that textual cohesion is, in fact, achieved by the use of particular lexical elements which are linking adverbials.
The latter basically has a pivotal function in writing academic researches in general, and literature review sections in particular. It serves to link the different parts of a text, with an indefinite length to create cohesion. It is widely acknowledged that linking adverbials differ from one category to another. Thus, writers should pay their attention to the way they use them.
Each year, graduate students of language sciences stream are asked to write their dissertations which requires adequacy in language skills, particularly in writing ones.
This challenging step leads these students to confront many obstacles, especially in the use of linking adverbials. That is why; they come off using the same variety of these lexical items repeatedly, and extensively. It is apparent that, this lack of performance is
2
mainly due to the lack of competence, and the very restrictive vocabulary those students have. Consequently, an analysis of the use of linking adverbials has been called for, in order to identify how these lexical items used in writing the literature review sections by graduate students in language sciences stream at Larbi Ben M’hidi University.
Aim of the Study
The current study has a major aim that is analyzing the use of linking adverbials by graduate students of language sciences stream at L’Arbi Ben M’hidi University in writing the literature review sections. However, the specific goal is presented below:
Investigating the most frequent linking adverbials used by these students while writing the literature review sections, in accordance to Huddleston and Pullum (2002) classification.
Research Questions and Hypothesis:
The present study will focus to answer the following question:
What are the most frequent linking adverbials used by graduate students of language sciences stream, while writing the literature reviews sections according to the categorization of Huddleston & Pullum (2002).
This study, additionally, rises up a hypothesis that is as follows:
Graduate students of language sciences stream tend to use extensively and repeatedly some linking adverbials than others while writing the literature review sections.
3
Significance of the Study:
Our study has a major significance in the sense that it helps to:
Show how graduate students of language sciences stream use the linking adverbials in the literature reviews sections (in terms of diversity and frequency).
Raise students’ awareness on the use of linking adverbials and their various categories.x
Raise teachers ‘awareness on how their students use linking adverbials in their dissertations.
Methodology and Design of the Study:
The Corpora
In order to achieve the aforementioned aims, a corpus of ten literature reviews sections was collected. This data is mainly got from master dissertation written between 2012/2017 at l’Arbi Ben M’hidi University. They were chosen randomly; for giving all the population the chance to be selected. The LR were coded to L1, L2,….L10.
The Method
The appropriate method for this research is the descriptive method, since, it a corpus linguistic analysis. Accordingly, AntConc (3.5.0) software should be used. This program developed by Prof. Laurence Anthony in 2014. It is considered as the main tool utilized for carrying out a corpus analysis study. The data will be converted to ‘txt’
format; then it will be entered in the corpus column each file separately. The writer will look for the linking adverbials taking into account the classification of Huddleston and Pullum (2002). The data will be analyzed, discussed, and compared in the result discussion section.
4
Structure of the Study:
The present study will be consisted of two main chapters, theoretical and practical.
The theoretical part will be also divided into three sections. The first section discusses the concept of cohesion, understanding linking adverbials, terminology of LAD, and their classifications. Then, the second section deals with main points of literature reviews; definition, steps, taxonomy, elements, and purpose. Then, the third section that is about corpus linguistics will discuss the definition, the historical background, the features, and types. However, the practical part will highlight, the sampling method used, the methodology followed by this research, the analysis and results’ discussion, and summary of the findings. General conclusion, pedagogical implications, and limitations of the study will appear at the last position of the chapter.
5
Chapter One: Linking Adverbials in Literature Review Sections
Content Page
Introduction ……… 6
1.1. Section one: The role of LAD in Textual Cohesion………7
1.1.1. The Concept of Cohesion………7
1.1.2. Understanding Linking Adverbials………10
1.1.3. Terminology of Linking Adverbials……… 12
1.1.4. Classifications of Linking Adverbials……... ……… 12
1.1.4.1. Pure Connectives………15
1.1.4.2. Impure Connectives………16
Conclusion ……….17
1.2. Section Two: Reviewing the Literature in Academic Research…18 Introduction……….18
1.2.1. Definition of Literature Review………18
1.2.2. Steps Involved in Writing LR………19
1.2.3. Taxonomy of LR………...20
1.2.4. Elements of LR ……….. 23
1.2.5. Purposes of LR ……….. 23
Conclusion ……….. 24
1.3. Section Three: Corpus Linguistics Analysis………. 25
Introduction……….. 25
1.3.1. Definition of Corpus Linguistics………. 25
1.3.2. Historical Background of Corpus Linguistics………. 25
1.3.3. Features of Corpus Linguistics………... 26
1.3.4. Types of Corpus Linguistics………...27
Conclusion ……….. 28
6
Chapter One: Linking Adverbials in Literature Review Sections Introduction
Writing a literature review requires adequacy in language use in general, and writing skill in particular. Besides, it is considered as the main step in the research process.
Reviewing to literature is mainly covered an analysis and evaluation of what has been done by previous researchers. Thus, it is set to be the basis of any research. In order to write a good literature review, linking adverbials has to be taken into account because of their value in linking semantically the different parts of any piece of language together to achieve unity.
This chapter will shed light on the significance of linking adverbials in writing literature review sections. It will be divided on three main sections. The first section will attempt to discuss the main concepts concerning these lexical devices; the definition, the various terminologies, and their classifications. Moreover, the second section will deal with the definition of literature review, steps involved, its taxonomy, the elements requires for its writing, and its purpose in the research process. Finally, the third section will highlight the important points concerning the corpus linguistics.
7
Section One: the Role of Linking Adverbials in Textual Cohesion Introduction
Linking adverbials (like: however, although) is a theme that has received a considerable attention in ELT. They are considered as the main tools used to create textual cohesion. Through these lexical items, the writer will be able to organize his ideas in one side, and enable the reader to link between what has been said and what is coming after in another side. Thus, a text without them would be difficult to be interpreted. A number of grammarians, in fact, agreed that these lexical items used to establish a semantic connection between the various parts of a piece of language to achieve unity. For instance, claimed that the chief function of linking adverbials is to conjoin linguistic unites together, with indefinite length, to achieve cohesion.
Consequently, linking adverbials have significant role in the unity of any piece of language, since they have an anaphoric relation.
1.1.1. The Concept of Cohesion
The dominance of cohesion has been stressed by Halliday and Hassan in 1976. They stated that, ‘it refers to relations of meaning that exist within the text, and that define it as a text’ (1967, p. 4). For the sake of understanding this definition, we have to go deeper and clarify what the text is. Halliday and Hassan (1976) asserted that a text may refer to a piece of language, (it may be spoken or written), with varying length gathered to make it as a whole. Admittedly, there are a great difference between what is called a text and a group of unrelated sentences. This latter is determined as fragments of language, because they have not a unified sense. Whereas, the former, is expressed as
‘a semantic unit: a unit not of form but of meaning’ (Halliday and Hassan 1976, p. 2).
Thus, what makes a piece of writing meaningful and coherent is the texture. Notably, texture is considered as the basic element that makes a text, and without it there will be
8
no link between sentences. Cran (2006, p. 131) argued that, ‘texture is the basis for unity and semantic interdependence within text and text without a texture would just be a group of isolated sentences with no relationship to one another’. To illustrate this idea, an example presented below:
[…..] The common conjunctions are: and, but, for, or, nor, yet, and so. They usually join the elements of a coordinate structure. (Bouzid, 2014 p. 13)
It is noticeable, that the term ‘they’ refers back to the word ‘conjunctions’. Thus, we can ensure that both of them refer to the same thing, and have similar reference.
Despite the fact that, texture has a great importance in the textual organization, Halliday and Hassan (1976) claimed that cohesion is mainly influenced by both, the presupposed and the presupposing, i-e the referring item, and the item that is referred
to. Additionally, to the aforementioned elements in the concept of cohesion, there is also another aspect that is used in analyzing a piece of language in accordance to its cohesive features (Halliday and Hassan, 1976). This concept is called a tie, and it is revealed in the relation of both items in a sentence. For instance, the relation between
‘conjunctions’ and ‘they’ in the above mentioned example is considered as a tie.
The pioneers of the concept of cohesion classified it into different categories. They are: reference, substitution, ellipsis, lexical cohesion, and conjunction. Concerning, the first category that is ‘reference’, it was well expressed in the previous example. In fact, our study gave much importance to the last category which is ‘conjunction’; because it is commonly acknowledged that linking adverbials are put under the umbrella of this cohesive relation. This conjunctive relation was divided into four main groups that is:
additive, adversative, causal, and temporal. This division was based on the assumption that these cohesive devices have a semantic relation, but the others (reference, substitution, ellipsis) has a lexico-grammatical relation except for the lexical cohesion
9
which accomplish through the use of lexical terms. However, Halliday & Matthiessen came with an extended classification which is: elaboration, extension, and enhancement. This categorization proposed to clear up ‘the relation where one span of text elaborates, extends, or enhances another span of a text’ (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 540). Actually, this classification will be explained on details with the system of conjunction that suggested by Halliday and Matthiessen (2004).
10
Figure 1. The System of Conjunction (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004) 1.1.2. Understanding Linking Adverbials:
Linking adverbials are the major contributors to the concept of cohesion. They are the main instruments that link the various parts of discourse together. Although, there is no clear definition of these lexical elements, many researchers had explained the linking adverbials through their function in the text. Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, Svartivik (1985) claimed that ‘conjuncts indicate how the speaker views the connection between two linguistic units.’ (p. 633). That is, conjuncts are based on the assessment
11
of the speaker on the linking of the two linguistic aspects. In the same line of thought, Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, and Finegan (1999), stated that linking adverbials
‘serve to make a semantic connection between spans of discourse of varying length, thus contributing to the cohesion of discourse’ (p. 558). So, linking adverbials are functioning as a bridge, because they used to connect the different parts of a text. These parts can be sentences, clauses or even paragraphs. In other side, Huddleston and Pullum (2002, p. 775) argued that ‘connective adjuncts serve to relate the clause to the neighboring text or, in the limiting case, to the context’. From these explanations about the function of these lexical items, we end up with a clear understanding. Linking adverbials are actually used to establish a relationship between the various parts of the text to make it semantically coherent.
Although, linking adverbials and conjunctions became controversial issues in the learning teaching situations, Grammarians point out some key features to remove this chaos. In fact, it was predetermined by Biber et al. (1999) that linking adverbials provide a semantic link, however, conjunctions mainly offer both syntactic and semantic connection. That is to say, this latter may gather two spans with or without commas. For example, ‘Tom went to work although he was sick’, or ‘Although he was sick, Tom went to work’ (Liu, 2008 p. 492). On the contrary, whenever the writer used linking adverbials, a period or a semi-colon is needed. For instance, ‘Jane lend money.
However, she does not turned it back.’ Or, ‘Jane lend money; however, she does not turned it back’. In some cases, there are some lexical items that used and function interchangeably as linking adverbials or conjunction. These lexical elements are, for instance, yet, or so…etc.
12
1.1.3. Terminology of Linking Adverbials
Linking adverbials as a term were introduced firstly by Biber et al (1999), since that, it was widely used in grammar books. They had been given various terms. In this sense, many grammarians utilized specific terms that go to their focus. It includes, among others, ‘conjuncts’ (Quirk et al, 1985), ‘connective adjuncts’ (Huddleston &
Pullum, 2002), ‘connective adverbials’(Murcia and Larsen- Freeman, 1999),
‘conjuncts’ (Finch ;Wales as cited in, Liu 2008). This terminology differs particularly on focus and the theoretical frame work of the author. Despite of the great variety in the terminology of linking adverbials, most grammarians agreed that these linking devices serve to conjoin semantically the linguistic unites with indefinite length. Moreover, they believed that there is an overwhelming difference between what called conjunctions in one hand, and linking adverbials to the other hand. That is because the former is used to link between shorter units that is below the clause level. However, the latter would be able to connect spans of discourse in a large scope, i-e it establish a semantic relation beyond the sentence level. Despite the fact that the division between coordinators and linking adverbials is not entirely clear cut, it is identified that coordinators play a similar role to linking adverbials. Therefore, this terminology of these lexical items have to take into account in the teaching learning situation, in order to avoid the misunderstanding and confusion that learners and teachers may encounter.
1.1.4. Classifications of Linking Adverbials:
The semantic categorization of linking adverbials had been introduced mostly in the three grammar books. The Comprehensive Grammar of the English language (Quirk et al., 1985); The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English ( Biber et al., 1999);
and The Cambridge Grammar of the English language ( Huddleston and Pullum, 2002).
For the classification of Quirk et al (1985), they distinguished seven groups of
13
connectives, where in some cases, divided into subcategories. The figure below will illustrate the classification clearly.
Figure 2. Quirk et al. (1985) Categorization of Linking Adverbials
It is observable, that Quirk et al. (1985) classified linking adverbials into listing, summative (then, overall), appositional (in other words, for example), resultive (consequently, hence…), inferential (then, otherwise...), contrastive, and transitional.
They, for instance, put under the listing category: enumerative (eg: first, second…), and additive which is also divided into: equative (correspondingly, similarly…). In addition, they subdivided the category of contrastive to: reformulatory (better, rather…), replacive (again, alternatively, rather…), authentic (on the contrary, in contrast…), and
listing
Summative
Resultive
Inferential Apposional
Contrastive
Transitional
Enumerative
Additive Equative
Reinforcing g
Reformulator Replacive Authentic Concessive Discoursal
Temporal
14
concessive (however, nevertheless…). In other hand, transitional category composed of two subgroups: discoursal (incidentally, now…), and temporal (meantime, meanwhile…). Despite the fact that this classification is proposed by grammarians, it includes some constraints. For example, the linking device ‘then’ may appear under the category of summative, and inferential, which will be difficult to discriminate them.
Correspondingly, Biber et al. (1999) brought much clear division of linking adverbials. They classified them into six series that are: enumeration /addition (first, second, in addition, furthermore…), summation (in sum, to conclude, all in all, to summarize…), apposition (in other words, that is, for instance, for example…), result / inference (therefore, consequently, as a result, and then…), contrast / concession (in contrast, by comparison, nevertheless, in spite of that…), and transition (by the way, incidentally, by the by...). It is arguable that Biber and his colleagues’ collection of these linking devices differ from the aforementioned division. In the sense that, they group together some categories as: enumeration/ addition, result/ inference, and contrast/ concession. The categorization will be presented in the figure below.
Figure3. Biber et al. (1999) Categorization of Linking Adverbials
Though, those grammarians classified these lexical items differently, with some similarities in particular groups, this study will give much interest to the categorization
Enumeration / Addition
Summation
Apposition Result / Inference Contrast / Concession Transition
15
of Huddleston and Pullum (2002). Since, it considered the most comprehensive and understandable classification, because of its clarity and accuracy. Huddleston and Pullum (2002), attempted to classify these linking devices into pure and impure connectives.
1.1.4.1. Pure connectives:
Huddleston and Pullum (2002, p. 777) indicate that ‘pure connectives like moreover and also have no other function than that of connecting their clause to the surrounding text (or context)’. In other words, pure adjuncts serve to relate the various parts of a text together. This group of linking adverbials is, in fact, divided into sub-categories:
a-Ordering:
Structuring a text, or any piece of language, requires a systematic separation of the different points. Thus, there are some connectives adjuncts contribute to the organization of the discourse. To strengthen this idea, an example was given by Huddleston and Pullum (2002, p. 778):
I have two objections to your proposal. In the first place, it has not been adequately costed. Secondly, it violates the spirit of our agreement with father.
It is apparent in this specimen, how the ideas are listed systematically. Therefore, we can understand that expressions like ‘in the first place’ are used to express the important points. However, the expressions as ‘secondly’ indicate the subsequent ideas.
From another side, Huddleston and Pullum (2002) offered some linking devices that used under the category of ordering which are:
First, firstly, in the first place, first of all, for a start, for one thing, on the one hand Second, secondly, in the second place, second of all, on the other hand, third, for another (thing), then
16
Finally, last, lastly, last of all, in conclusion. This series are used to mark the end of the discourse.
b- Addition and Comparison ( likeness and contrast):
Huddleston & Pullum proposed this group of linking devices with particular expressions that demonstrate the adding and the contrasting points. They are:
Addition: also, furthermore, likewise, besides, however, moreover, similarly, in addition, too.
Comparison: alternatively, either, in comparison, nor, by contrast, instead, on the contrary, rather, conversely, neither.
c- Elaboration and Exemplification:
This group of linking devices described with particular expressions which are: for example, for instance, in other words, more precisely, that is (to say)….
d- Markers of Informational Status:
To indicate a change from a topic to another, there are several connectives should be used: by the way, incidentally, parenthetically….
1.1.4.2. Impure connectives:
Impure connectives have also the function of linking, but combined with other functions. Huddleston and Pullum (2002, p. 777) for the sake of demonstrating this idea, they provided us with an example of connective ‘therefore’, which links the clauses together, and in the same time indicate the reason behind the occurrence of the event.
His son had been charged with importing illegal drugs; Ed had therefore decided to resign from the School Board.
Huddleston and Pullum (2002) labeled this category of connectives into subgroups.
They are concession (nevertheless, nonetheless, still, though, yet.), condition (anyway,
17
in that case, otherwise, then.), and reason/ result (accordingly, as a result, consequently, hence, in consequence, so, therefore, thus).
Conclusion
To sum up, linking adverbials are used mainly to connect the different parts of a text to create cohesion. So, what has been discussed before is the concept of cohesion.
Since, it is not possible to deal with linking adverbials without understanding textual cohesion. Then, we attempted to give a clear idea about these lexical items and how do function in a text. After that, we explain the various terms used by some scholars to refer to linking adverbials. Last but not least, we discuss the different classification proposed by Quirk et al. (1985), Biber et al. (1999), and Huddleston and Pullum (2002).
18
Section Two: Reviewing the Literature in Academic Researches Introduction
:
Undertaking a literature review is a pivotal step in the research process. It is considered as the body of any dissertation or journal article, because it covers an analysis and assessment of what has been done before by other researchers, in association to the area of study. In other words, it has a crucial role in academic writing in general, and dissertations in particular. If a literature review is not accurately done, we can ensure that the remaining parts of the study are also flowed. Boote and Beile (2005, p. 3) state that ‘the researcher cannot perform significant research without first understanding the literature in the field’ (as cited in Randolph, 2009). Thus, much importance must be given to literature review, because it is the base for research in almost every academic area.
1.2.1. Definition of Literature Review:
Fink (2014, p. 3) defined literature review as ‘systematic, explicit, and reproducible method for identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing the existing body of completed and recorded work produced by researchers, scholars, and practitioners’. It is an evaluative report of knowledge made by previous researchers in particular area of interest in order to find what constraints exist in the relevant body of knowledge. It is apparent that this process is divided into two parts, literature which refers to the knowledge or information gathered by the researcher, and review that is about identifying, assessing, and synthesizing the gathered data. Hart (1998), however, argued that ‘literature review introduces and provides examples of a range of techniques that can be used to analyze ideas, find relationships between different ideas and understand the nature and use of argument in research’(p. 1). It is arguable, that review to literature has various aims and purposes. That is to say, number of researchers focus to analyze new values, or
19
methodological developments in particular field of study in one hand. Others tend to evaluate the existing body or developing new theories in other hand. Thus, reviewing the literature is not an easy task, because it enables the investigator to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate what had been done by other researchers. In that, he will be able to point out the gaps in the existing body of information.
1.2.2. Steps Involved in Writing Literature Review:
Literature review has a significant role in undertaking a research. Notably, it contains the current knowledge including substantive findings, as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to a particular subject of interest. Hence, reviewing the literature accurately requires vary steps that should be followed. Fink (2014) pointed out seven steps that a researcher needs to pursue. The first task is delimiting the research questions. In the sense that, the researcher must choose the researcher problem, which requires to not being too broad or too narrow, but it must be manageable. The second stage is selecting bibliographic or article databases, web sites, and other sources. In fact, bibliographic data defined by Fink (2014) as ‘a collection of articles, books, and reports that can provide data to answer research questions’ (p. 3).
That is to say, this step based on gathering data from different sources and analyze them critically that enable the researcher to find an answer for his research questions.
The third step is selecting the researches’ terms, i-e various words or sentences that help the researcher to get suitable data, and to structure his work according to the research problem. For example the Boolean logic, that is widely used by scholars and researchers in order to obtain particular data. The following stage is applying practical screening criteria. This step involves an examination of data in terms of relevance toward what should be included or excluded from his work. Therefore, several criteria have to be taken into account, which are: the language that is used, the date of
20
publication, the type of article, and finding source. The fifth step is concerned with the factors for analyze the methodology of the study; I-e, the criteria that are used to assess the quality of the work. After applying these steps, the scholar starts making the review that requires reliability, and validity. According to Fink (2014) these factors are, in fact, achieved by gathering data from well known sources, training the writers to make the review, evaluate the quality of the work, finally, test the work before introduce it. In addition to the aforementioned stages, the researcher in the final step attempts to synthesize the findings descriptively. This process is concerned with the discussion of the review’s results, taking into account the writer’s experience, and quality and content of the existing body of information.
1.2.3. Taxonomy of Literature Review:
For the sake of classifying literature reviews, Cooper (1988) proposed a clear taxonomy that is followed by most reviewers in order to describe their own works. He claimed that literature reviews can be classified according to six features, which are:
focus, goals, perspectives, coverage, organization, and audience. We start our discussion by the first characteristic that is the focus of any review. Notably, Cooper (1988) determined several potential foci: the results of an existing literature, the methodological framework, theories that are already exist, and practices (applications, or treatments). The second characteristic is the goal of many reviews, i-e what they tend to achieve. In fact, the major goals of literature reviews are to integrate (the past literatures which are related to particular study) and generalize findings across: results, methods, theories; resolve conflicts within a field in terms of outcomes, or information;
or to bridge the gap between ideas, or create a new linguistic framework. In another side, the reviews have additional purposes that are analyzing critically the existing knowledge; or identify the central issues. Moreover, perspectives are considered also as
21
another feature of literature reviews. Perspectives, actually, depend on whether the research conducted in qualitative or quantitative method. In the former, for instance, the review authors tend to reveal their view points, and discuss how these biases influence the review. However, in the later the researchers attempt to have a neutral perspective.
That is to say, they have to be objective as much as possible in presenting the findings.
The next feature is coverage. It is about the extent to which reviewers find relevant work in their paper. Cooper suggested four main types of coverage. The exhaustive coverage that is about the way the reviewers locate the entire literature, i-e they should include every available piece of research on particular area of interest, it is not necessary if it is published or unpublished. The second type is exhaustive review with selective citation. In this type, the reviewer also bases the findings on the entire literature; however he selected a sample of works to be cited. The third type is concerned with representative sample in which ‘the review authors consider a representative sample of articles and make inferences about the entire population of articles from that sample’ (Randolf, 2009 p. 4). The final type is to take a purposive sample. That is to say the reviewer gathers and analyzes the significant and major articles in relation to particular study. The next characteristic that proposed by Cooper is the organization of the review. This feature has to do with the way the reviewer structured his work. There are three common formats in which the researcher organizes the work, the historical format, the conceptual format, and methodological format.
Concerning the historical scheme the investigator structured the work on chronological order; conceptual format, so that the investigator gathers the various works that have relation to his work; and methodological structure in which the reviewer collects the works that employ a similar methods to his study. The final feature suggested by cooper is the audience. Since, the review may be addressed to a group of specialized or general
22
researchers, or scholars of specific field, as if it may be written in some cases to general public.
Table 1
Cooper’s Taxonomy of Literature Reviews
Characteristic Categories
Focus - research findings -Research methods - Theories
- Practices or applications
Goal - Integration
Generalization conflict resolution
linguistic bridge- building -Criticism
- Identification of central issues
Perspective - Neutral representation
- Espousal of position
Coverage Exhaustive
Exhaustive with selective citation Representative
Central or pivotal
Organization Historical
Conceptual Methodological
Audience Specialized scholars
General scholars Practitioners makers General public
23
1.2.4. Elements of Literature Review:
Writing an effective literature review requires some major elements that must be revealed while writing a research. Weissberg and Buker (1990) proposed certain elements they are, the general statement in which the researcher discusses what this section will be about. The second element is to review to what has been done before, i-e refer to previous researches that tackle this area. Moreover, the researcher has to fill the gap that is missing in previous works. In other words, the investigator must present the novelty that he came with to carry out this research. The last element is reference to current research, in which the researcher determines the pivotal objective that has to be achieved.
1.2.5. Purposes of Literature Review
:
Despite the fact that, literature review is a secondary source, it is considered as the valuable part in any research paper. Therefore, Hart (1988), among other investigators, propose several reasons behind reviewing to the literature, and it is helpful in:
Differentiate between what has been done from what needs to be done.
Find the significant variables relevant to the area of study.
Synthesize and gain a new perspective.
Recognize the relationships between ideas and practices.
Establish the context of the topic or problem.
Rationalize the importance of the problem.
Enhance and learn the subject lexis.
Identify the framework of the research.
Relating ideas and theory to application.
Understanding the methodologies of the subject.
24
Place the topic into a historical perspective.
Conclusion
To conclude, it is apparent that reviewing to literature has a significant role in conducting a research. Therefore, in this section we attempt to tackle the major points that we may find in any literature review. So, we start by giving a clear definition to be understood. Then, we discuss the steps that the researcher should follow while carry out a literature review, and the taxonomy that is proposed by Cooper. Finally we dealt the main elements and the purposes that any literature review may achieve.
25
Section Three: Corpus Linguistics Analysis Introduction
Despite the fact that there are several methods used to carry out a research, many
researchers suggested the corpus based linguistics as the substantial and the valuable method used to analyze data. It is relatively new approach in linguistics that has to do with the empirical study of ‘real life’ language use, with the help of computers and electronic corpora. Thus, it proposes new perspective, and many new areas of research.
That is why; it gains popularity in its field.
1.3.1. Definition of Corpus Linguistics
McEnery & Hardie (2012) defined corpus linguistics as ‘the study of language data on a large scale- the computer – aided analysis of very extensive collections of transcribed utterances or written texts’ (p. 1). That is to say, it is the computerized analysis of naturally occurring texts; it may reveal on spoken or written language. In other hand, Hunston (2002, p.2) described corpus linguistics as ‘ a collection of naturally occurring examples of language, consisting of anything from a few sentences to a set of written texts or tape recordings, which have been collected for linguistic study’. From these definitions, we end up with a clear understanding that corpus can be described as an empirical study that permits investigations on different varieties of language using the computer for analyzing the data.
Although, ‘corpus’ can refer to any systematic text collections, it is widely used in a narrower sense today, and it is often only used to refer to systematic text collections that have been computerized.
1.3.2. Historical Background of Corpus Linguistics
The corpus based linguistics as a methodology of research has been traced back to the nineteenth century. However, this tool of research has a substantial history. In fact,
26
the corpus based linguistics appeared by the emergence of linguistics, not as branch, but as a methodology to carry out a linguistic research. McEnery and Wilson (2001, p. 2) claimed that ‘corpus linguistics, in contrast is a methodology rather than an aspect of language requiring explanation or description.’ In that period of time, linguists mainly use shoeboxes filled with paper slips, rather than computers as tools of data gathered.
Additionally, their corpora had a simple size, since they use simple collection of written texts which are not clearly representative.
Hence, the corpus methodology in that time was severely criticized, if not abandoned, because of the ‘skewedness’ of corpora. In the same line of thought, Chomsky as cited in McEnery & Wilson 2001) stated:
Any natural corpus will be skewed. Some sentences won’t occur because they are obvious, others because they are false, still others because they are impolite. The corpus, if natural, will be so wildly skewed that the description [based upon it] would be no more than a mere list.
Chomsky’s criticism was undoubtedly true, when it was made. As it was mentioned before that the shoebox corpora were small in size, and did not achieve representativeness. However, after the development in technology, the corpus based linguistics also developed. This progress revealed by the use of computers to analyze large size of sample. Yet, several studies of corpus have been done in this framework.
Nowadays, the corpus methodology enjoys widespread popularity. It has opened up or fore-grounded many new areas of research.
1.3.3. Features of Corpus Linguistics
According to McEnery, Xiao, & Tono (2006), corpus based linguistics contains
some features that should be presented in any corpora. It should be at first, machine- readable. That is to say, it must be automatic data storage. In addition, the corpus
27
should include authentic texts. Since, it has to do with real life language in use.
Moreover, another criterion that should be respected while conducting a corpus based approach is representativeness. It was agreed by many researchers that this criterion signifies the extent to which the chosen sample represents the entire population. Biber claimed that ‘representativeness refers to the extent to which a sample includes the full range of variability in a population.’ (As cited in, McEnery and Wilson 2001).
1.3.4. Types of Corpus Linguistics
After the development in the field of technology and computers particularly, the corpus based approach took its part of the progress as well. Since that, the corpus analysis shifted from the traditional methods to the computerized ones. The corpus based approach has many types, it includes among others:
a. Specialized Corpus:
It is a corpus that contains texts from a particular genre or registers or restricted to specific point of time. Specialized corpus is defined by Hunston (2002) as:
It is a corpus of texts of particular type, such as news paper editorials, geography textbooks, academic articles in a particular subject, lectures, casual conversations, essays written by students, etc. It aims to be representative of a given type of text. It is used to investigate a particular type of language. […]
There is no limit to the degree of specialization involved, but the parameters are set to limit the kind of text included. For example, a corpus might be restricted to a time frame, consisting of texts from a particular century, or to a social setting, such as conversations taking place in a bookshop, or to a given topic, such as news paper articles dealing with the European union. (p. 14) This type has no limits in size; i-e, it can be conducted with large or small size.
28
b. General Corpus:
In contrast to the specialized corpus, the general corpus is a corpus of texts of many genres. It may reveals on spoken or written language or both. In addition, the general corpus usually compiled with a large samples or size, which is about more than 100 million words. The most common general corpora are, the British National Corpus (100 million words), and the Bank of English (400 million words).
c. Learner corpus Vs Pedagogic corpus
Learner corpus is basically a collection of texts produced by second or foreign language learners, for the sake to determine how learners differ from the native speakers in general, and from each other in particular in the aspects of the language. The well known learner corpus in the field of applied linguistics is the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) that is set of corpora compromise of 20.000 words in each.
However, the pedagogic corpus defined by Hunston (2002, p. 16) as ‘a corpus consisting of all the language the learner has been exposed to.’ In other words, pedagogic corpus collected by all what the learner came across or use via teaching materials like, books, courses, or tapes,… either in classroom or during self-study activities.
Conclusion
The corpus based linguistics had been supported by many researchers in the field of linguistics and applied linguistics. Our section tries to provide a thorough overview about the corpus methodology. Since, there is a consensus claim that corpus linguistics is the analysis of naturally occurring data with automatic data storage. In addition, we try to discuss the historical background of this methodology, and its main features.
Finally, this study attempts to give the most important types of corpus linguistics.
29
Chapter Two: Data Analysis and Results’ Discussions
Content Page
Introduction……… 31 2.1. Research Methodology……… 31 2.1.1. Sampling Method………. 31 2.1.2. Corpus Compilation………..31 2.1.2.1. The Selection of the Corpus………...31
2.1.2.2. Methods and Analytical Procedures………32 2.2. Data Analysis and Interpretations……….33
2.2.1. Analysis of LSS MA Theses………..33 2.2.1.1. L1 Analysis……….34 2.2.1.2. L2 Analysis……….36 2.2.1.3. L3 Analysis……….38 2.2.1.4. L4 Analysis……….40 2.2.1.5. L5 Analysis ……….42 2.2.1.6. L6 Analysis……….44
2.2.1.7. L7 Analysis ……….46 2.2.1.8. L8 Analysis………..48 2.2.1.9. L9 Analysis ………..50 2.2.1.10. L10 Analysi……… 52
2.3. Discussion of Findings of LSS……… 53 2.4. Summary of the Findings……… 54
General Conclusion……… 56 Pedagogical Implications ……… 57
Limitations of the Study………57
30
Suggestions for further studies ………57 Appendix
Résumé ﺺﺨﻠﻤﻟا
31
Chapter Two: Data Analysis and Results’ Discussions Introduction
In contrast to the theoretical part that covers the different perspectives and concepts of this study, the current chapter will be more practically and an attempt to obtain accurate analysis. In this regard, there are two major aims that the present study would achieve. It aims at investigating the use of linking adverbials by graduate students of LSS in writing the literature review sections according to Huddleston and Pullum (2002). However, the specific goal is to examine the most frequent linking adverbials used by these students in the LR sections. Thus, this chapter will tackle the practical procedures. The latter will include, the corpus that would be analyzed, tools for carry out this research, the analysis, the results, and the discussion of the findings.
2.1. Research Methodology 2.1.1. Sampling Method
In order to achieve representativeness and balance in the corpus design, a sample method should be followed. For this sake, a random simple sample technique has been used, in which the entire population has an equal chance to be selected. The sample of this research contains ten literature reviews sections of master dissertations that were written at 2012-2017.
2.1.2. Corpus Compilation
2.1.2.1. The Selection of the Corpus
A total of ten literature reviews sections were compiled for the study, written by post graduate students of language sciences stream at L’Arbi Ben M’hidi University between 2012/2017. The data were converted to ‘word’ format and coded to L1, L2,…, L10. This technique will be helpful to remain the literature reviews anonymous
32
2.1.2.2. Method and Analytical Procedures
To achieve the aims of the current study which is a corpus linguistic, a descriptive study will be followed. This latter is mostly used to describe the phenomenon being studied. Thus, it seems the suitable method to obtain accurate results and a clear description.
Moving to tools of research being used, the current study will analyze the frequency of linking adverbials using AntConc (3.5.0) software. It is a free program developed by Prof. Laurence Anthony in 2014, which is used for carrying out the corpus linguistics analysis. For the sake of working with this software, the data of the present study converted to ‘txt’ format, and entered in the corpus column each file alone. Then, the writer should click on ‘start’ to look for the linking adverbials with their frequencies in each file. The writer is, in fact, based his research on the classification of linking adverbials of Huddleston and Pullum (2002). Thus, he entered the linking adverbial to see how much it is used in these texts. As it is mentioned previously in the theoretical part there are some conjunctions that function as linking adverbials like, ‘yet’ and ‘so’.
That is why, this study find some difficulties to differentiate between them, because the software presented all the cases of using these lexical items.
After measuring the frequency of linking devices in each corpus alone, the results will be presented in tables with their percentages. Besides for more clarification and visualization, figures also will be used. Since, the writer is followed Huddleston and Pullum (2002) classification; the connectives are going to be classified into two main categories that are ‘pure connectives’ and ‘impure connectives’. Finally, the results and their interpretations are presented in the result and discussion section.
33
2.2. Data Analysis and Interpretations
To obtain a better answer on the main question of the most frequent linking adverbials used by graduate students of LS stream based on Huddleston and Pullum (2002), an analysis of these lexical items had been done. The analysis of this research comprised of ten literature reviews taken from master dissertations. This study is collected through two steps. The first one is gathering all the results and their interpretations. While the second step, is classifying the linking adverbials in accordance to Huddleston and Pullum (2002) categorization. The findings will be revealed in the coming pages.
2.2.1. Analysis of LSS MA Theses
Ten literature review sections are analyzed, and the findings will be presented in the
following tables and figures:
34
2.2.1.1. L1 Analysis
After analyzing the use of linking adverbials in literature reviews, the table below will present the frequency and the percentages of each lexical item:
Table 2
The Most Frequent Linking Adverbials and Percentages Used in L1
Linking adverbials Frequency Percentage
a- Ordering First First of all Second
On the other hand Third
Finally Last Then
11 2 6 8 3 4 3 4
6.9 1.3 3.8 5.1 1.9 2.5 1.9 2.5 b- Addition & comparison
Also Besides Furthermore In addition Likewise Moreover Similarly Either However Rather
20 8 3 7 4 9 1 2 7 1
12.7 5.1 1.9 4.4 2.5 5.5 0.6 1.3 4.4 0.6 c- Elaboration & exemplification
For example For instance In other words That is (to say)
4 4 2 5
2.5 2.5 1.3 3.2 d- Concession
Still 1 0.6
e- Reason & result As a result Hence So
Therefore Thus
10 5 8 9 7
6.3 3.2 5.1 5.7 4.4
Total 158 100
35
Figure 4. The Frequency of Linking Adverbials in L1
It is observable, in table (2) that there is great variety in using linking adverbials with a high number of 156. This number indicates the vast variation the writer has.
However, it is shown that this writer overwhelms in using some linking devices extensively than others. Figure (4) above illustrates that the highest frequency is given to ‘also’ that used 20 times with a percentage of 12.8%, ‘first’ appeared 11 times with a percentage of 7%, ‘as a result’ utilized 10 times with a percentage of 6.4%. Pursued by, ‘therefore’ with a percentage of 5.7%; ‘on the other hand’, ‘besides’, and ‘so’ which appeared 8 times, with a percentage of 5.1%. Having the percentage of 4.4%, ‘in
addition’, ‘however’, and ‘thus’ are presented in the next range. While, ‘second’
appeared 6 times with a percentage of 3.8%, followed by ‘that is to say’ and ‘hence’
which got the percentage of 3.2%.
0 5 10 15 20 25
Frequency
Frequency
36
2.2.1.2. L2 Analysis Table 3:
The Frequency and Percentage of Linking Adverbials in L2
Linking adverbials Frequency Percentage
a- Ordering First
On the one hand Second
On the other hand Third
Last Lastly Then
17 4 14 5 3 5 2 8
9.9 2.3 8.1 2.9 1.7 2.9 1.2 4.7 b- Addition & comparison
In addition Also
Furthermore Besides Moreover Similarly Too Rather However Neither Alternatively Either
In comparison Nor
Instead
5 10 3 2 5 1 2 8 8 1 1 4 3 1 4
2.9 5.8 1.7 1.2 2.9 0.6 1.2 4.7 4.7 0.6 0.6 2.3 1.7 0.6 2.3 c- Elaboration & exemplification
For example In other words That is (to say)
5 2 2
5.2 3.5 2.9 d- Markers of informational status
Incidentally 1 0.6
e- Concession Still
Though Yet
9 6 5
5.2 3.5 2.9 f- Reason & result
Accordingly As a result Consequently Hence
So
Therefore
2 1 3 7 4 5
1.2 0.6 1.7 4.1 2.3 2.9
Thus Total
Figure 5. The Use of Lin
It is shown in the table (3)
number of 172. Moving to figure (5), i
adverbials used are, ‘first’ that appeared 17 times with a percentages of 9.9%, ‘second’
which revealed 14 times with a percentage of 8.1%
of 5.8%, ‘still’ 9 times with a percentage of 5.2%, followed by ‘then, however, rather’
which are used 8 times with a percentage of 4.7%
addition’, ‘moreover’, ‘for example’, and ‘yet’ that have the percentage of 5.2%
next class, came ‘on the one hand’, ‘either’, ‘instead’ with a percentage of 2.3%.
Though, the writer is used this great number of li
devices and ignored others. For instance, in the case of ordering, he is using extensively
‘first’ without using the other lexical items like, for a start, or first of all thing, when it comes to the ‘adding’ c
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
First Second Third lastly In addition
37
4 2.3
172 100
inking Adverbials in L2
It is shown in the table (3) the use of linking adverbials in L2,
Moving to figure (5), it is observable that the most frequent linking s used are, ‘first’ that appeared 17 times with a percentages of 9.9%, ‘second’
which revealed 14 times with a percentage of 8.1%, ‘also’ 10 times, with a percentage 9 times with a percentage of 5.2%, followed by ‘then, however, rather’
which are used 8 times with a percentage of 4.7%.While, ‘on the other hand’, ‘last’, ‘in addition’, ‘moreover’, ‘for example’, and ‘yet’ that have the percentage of 5.2%
next class, came ‘on the one hand’, ‘either’, ‘instead’ with a percentage of 2.3%.
used this great number of linking adverbials, he over used some others. For instance, in the case of ordering, he is using extensively
‘first’ without using the other lexical items like, for a start, or first of all
thing, when it comes to the ‘adding’ category we observe that ‘also’ is used repeatedly.
Furthermore Moreover Too However Alternatively In comparison instead In other words Incidentally Though Accordingly Consequently So
Frequency
2.3 100
the use of linking adverbials in L2, with an overall the most frequent linking s used are, ‘first’ that appeared 17 times with a percentages of 9.9%, ‘second’
‘also’ 10 times, with a percentage 9 times with a percentage of 5.2%, followed by ‘then, however, rather’
‘on the other hand’, ‘last’, ‘in addition’, ‘moreover’, ‘for example’, and ‘yet’ that have the percentage of 5.2%. In the next class, came ‘on the one hand’, ‘either’, ‘instead’ with a percentage of 2.3%.
nking adverbials, he over used some others. For instance, in the case of ordering, he is using extensively
‘first’ without using the other lexical items like, for a start, or first of all. The same ategory we observe that ‘also’ is used repeatedly.
So Thus
frequency
38
2.2.1.3. L3 Analysis Table 4
The Frequency and Percentages of LAD in L3
Linking adverbials Frequency Percentage
a- Ordering First Second
On the other hand Third
Then Finally Last
3 2 1 1 1 2 2
4.1 2.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.7 2.7
b- Addition & comparison In addition
Also Besides Moreover Too Either Rather
1 4 1 2 1 1 2
1.4 5.5 1.4 2.7 1.4 1.4 2.7 c- Elaboration & exemplification
For example For instance In other words
10 8 3
13.7 11 4.1 d- Reason & result
Consequently Hence
So
Therefore Thus
2 4 9 8 5
2.7 5.5 12.3 11 6.8
Total 73 100
