Usage of Comparison/Contrast Pattern in Undergraduate Academic Essays
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22364/BJELLC.02.2012.04Keywords:
comparison/contrast essay, EFL undergraduate writing, rhetorical pattern, linking signals, coherenceAbstract
The present paper discusses undergraduate essay writing in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in Latvia. The goal of the paper is to examine the basic problems in student comparison/contrast essays. The analysis of 23 essays revealed that some students had problems with determining the purpose of communication and selecting an appropriate thesis statement to fulfil the task. Moreover, another problem was linked with the choice of the topic sentences and their supports which develop the controlling idea of the thesis statement, as well as the choice of information for the concluding paragraph. The analysis of the rhetorical patterns and linguistic signals revealed that one essay might display features of several patterns: comparison/contrast, description, problem- solution, cause-effect, illustration. Thus, the research showed that structuring of the comparison/ contrast essay in the target language is one of the problematic aspects in EFL undergraduate writing in Latvia.
References
Bacha, N. N. (2010) Teaching the academic argument in a university EFL environment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9: 229-241.
Carter, R., Hughes, R. and McCarthy, M. (2000) Exploring Grammar in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dickson, S., Simmons, D.C. and Kameenui, E. J. (1995) Text organization and its relation to reading comprehension: a synthesis of the research. Technical Report No. 17 Produced for the National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators, University of Oregon. Available from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED386864.pdf [Accessed August 10, 2011].
Farneste, M. (2011a) Moves in the introductions of problem-solution essays. Baltic Journal of English Language, Literature and Culture 1: 20-28.
Farneste, M. (2011b) Rhetorical structures in problem-solution essays (pp. 129-136). In Vārds un tā pētīšanas aspekti, 15 (2): rakstu krājums. Liepāja: LiePA.
Fraser, B. (2011) The sequencing of contrastive discourse markers in English. Baltic Journal of English Language, Literature and Culture, 1: 29-35.
Heuboeck, A. (2009) Some aspects of coherence, genre and rhetorical structure – and their integration in a generic model of text. Languages Working Papers 1: 35-45.
Hirose, K. (2003) ‘Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students.’ Journal of Second Language Writing 12: 181– 209.
Hoey, M. (2001) Textual Interaction. An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Routledge.
Kobayashi, H. and Rinnert, C. (2008) Task response and text construction across L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17: 7–29.
Oshima, A. and Hogue, A. (2006) Writing Academic English. Level 4, 4th edit. Longman.
Smalley, R. L. and Ruetten, M. K. (1990) Refining Composition Skills. Rhetoric and Grammar for ESL Students, 3rd edit. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Sorenson, S. (1992) Webster’s New World Student Writing Handbook, 2nd edit. New York: Macmillan.
Taylor, G. (2009) A Student’s Writing Guide. How to Plan and write Successful Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tribble, C. (1996) Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vivanco, V. (2005) The absence of connectives and the maintenance of coherence in publicity texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 37: 1233–1249.
White, R. and McGovern, D. (1994). Writing. English for Academic Studies. Teacher’s Book. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
