Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T06:24:54.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analyzing Topical Structure in ESL Essays

Not All Topics Are Equal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Melanie Schneider  and
Ulla Connor
Melanie Schneider
Affiliation:
Monterey Institute of International Studies
Ulla Connor
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Indianapolis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Topical structure analysis (TSA), a text-based approach to the study of topic in discourse, has been useful in identifying text-based features of coherence. It has also been used to distinguish between essays written by groups of native English speakers with varying degrees of writing proficiency (Witte, 1983a, 1983b). More recently, TSA has distinguished between higher and lower rated ESL essays, but with different results from those found with native speakers of English (Connor & Schneider, 1988). The present study replicated the previous ESL study of two groups of essays written for the TOEFL Test of Written English with three groups of essays. Findings indicate that two topical structure variables, proportions of sequential and parallel topics in the essays, differentiate the highest rated group from the two lower rated groups. We offer explanations for the results and propose that all occurrences of a particular type of topic progression do not contribute equally to the coherence of a text.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 1990 , pp. 411 - 427
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1990). Pragmatic word order in English composition. In Connor, U. & Johns, A. M. (Eds.), Coherence: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 43–65). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Carrell, P. L. (1984). The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 441–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P. L. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 727–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P. L. (1987). Text as interaction: Some implications of text analysis and reading research for ESL composition. In Connor, U. & Kaplan, R. B. (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 45–55). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Cerniglia, C., Medsker, K., & Connor, U. (1990). Improving coherence using computer-assisted instruction. In Connor, U. & Johns, A. M. (Eds.), Coherence: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 227–241). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Connor, U. (1984a). Recall of text: Differences between first and second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, U. (1984b). A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second language students' writing. Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication, 17, 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, U. (1987). Research frontiers in writing analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 677–696.Google Scholar
Connor, U, & Farmer, M. (1990). The teaching of topical structure analysis as a revision strategy for ESL writers. In Kroll, B. (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 126–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Connor, U, & Lauer, J. (1985). Understanding persuasive essay writing: Linguistic/rhetorical approach. Text, 5, 309–326.Google Scholar
Connor, U, & Lauer, J. (1988). Cross-cultural variation in persuasive student writing. In Purves, A. C. (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 138–159). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Connor, U., & Schneider, M. (1988, March). Topical structure and writing quality: Results of an ESL study. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual TESOL Convention, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ö. (1974). Topic-comment structure visited. In Dahl, Ö. (Ed.), Topic and comment, contextual bounded-ness and focus (Papiere zur Textlinguistik, 6, pp. 1–24). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
Daneš, F. (1964). A three-level approach to syntax. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague, 1, 225–240.Google Scholar
Daneš, F. (1974). Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In Daneš, F. (Ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective (pp. 106–128). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evensen, L. S. (1990). Pointers to superstructure in student writing. In Connor, U. & Johns, A. M. (Eds), Coherence: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 169–183). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. (1964). On defining theme in functional sentence analysis. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague, 1, 267–280.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. (1966). Non-thematic subjects in contemporary English. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague, 2, 239–254.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. (1974). Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to problems in functional sentence perspective. In Daneš, F. (Ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective (pp. 11–37). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaies, S. (1980). T-unit analysis in second language research: Applications, problems, and limitations. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 53–60.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Huitema, B. (1980). The analysis of covariance and alternatives. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels (NCTE Research Report No. 3). Urbana, IL: NCTE.Google Scholar
Hunt, K. W. (1970). Syntactic maturity in schoolchildren and adults (Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, No. 134). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lautamatti, L. (1978). Observations on the development of the topic in simplified discourse. In Enkvist, N. E. & Kohonen, V. (Eds.), Text linguistics, cognitive learning and language teaching (Publications de I'Association findlandaise de linguistique appliquée No. 22, pp. 71–104). Helsinki: Akateeminen Kirjakauppa.Google Scholar
Lautamatti, L. (1987). Observations on the development of the topic in simplified discourse. In Connor, U. & Kaplan, R. B. (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 92–126). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., & Rothery, J. (1980). Writing project: Report 1 (Working Papers in Linguistics). Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Mathesius V. (1975). On linguistic characterology with illustrations from modern English. Reprinted in Vachek, J. (Ed.), A Prague School reader in linguistics (pp. 59–67). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. (Original work published 1928).Google Scholar
McCulley, G. (1985). Writing quality, coherence, and cohesion. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 269–281.Google Scholar
Nold, E. W., & Freedman, S. W. (1977). An analysis of readers' responses to student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 12, 245–256.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, R. C, Griffin, W J., & Norris, R. C. (1967). Syntax of kindergartern and elementary school children: A transformational analysis (NCTE Research Report No. 8). Urbana, IL: NCTE.Google Scholar
Patterson, A., & Lindell, E. (1976). Om fri skrivning: Skolan. Pedagogisk-psychologiska problem [About school writing. Pedagogical/psychological problems] (Report No. 301). Malmö, Sweden: Lärarhögskolan.Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223–255). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reid, J. (1987, April). Does ESL writing differ qualitatively? Paper presented at the 21st Annual TESOL Convention, Miami.Google Scholar
Schneider, M. (forthcoming). Tightening up cohesion: Distinguishing between college writers. Research in the Teaching of English.Google Scholar
Söter, A. (1985). Writing: A third language for second language writers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Champaign–Urbana.Google Scholar
Stevens, J. (1986). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tipton, S. (1987). The effectiveness of topical structure analysis as a revision strategy for ESL writers. Unpublished master's thesis, Ohio University, Athens, OH.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1984). Towards a description of argumentative text structure. In Ringbom, H. & Rissanen, M. (Eds.), Proceedings from the second Nordic conference on English studies (Publications of the Research Institute of the Abo Akademi Foundation No. 92, pp. 221–236). Abo, Finland: Abo Akademi.Google Scholar
Weissberg, R. (1988). Topical structure and writing quality in the writing of ESL students. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Wikborg, E. (1985). Types of coherence breaks in university student writing. In Enkvist, N. E. (Ed.), Coherence and composition: A symposium (pp. 98–133). Abo, Finland: Research Institute of the Abo Akademi Foundation.Google Scholar
Wikborg, E. (1987). Coherence breaks in Swedish student writing: Misleading paragraph division. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Witte, S. (1983a). Topical structure and revision: An exploratory study. College Composition and Communication, 34, 313–341.Google Scholar
Witte, S. (1983b). Topical structure and writing quality: Some possible text-based explanations of readers' judgments of students' writing. Visible Language, 17, 177–205.Google Scholar
Witte, S., & Faigley, L. (1981). Cohesion, coherence, and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 32, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar