Cohesion and coherence in Chinese ESL writing

• Main Author: Zhu, Hong
• Other Authors: Curriculum and Instruction
• Format: Others
• Language: en
• Published: Virginia Tech 2014
• Subjects: LD5655.V856 1992.Z478; Cohesion (Linguistics); English language > Study and teaching > Chinese speakers; Interlanguage (Language learning)
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10919/40410; http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-12142006-131842/

Cohesion and coherence are important features for effective writing. Studies in contrastive rhetoric and text linguistics suggest that cohesion and coherence may vary across languages and cultures. This study examined cohesion and coherence features of Chinese ESL writings, explored the similarities and the differences between Chinese and English, and investigated the role of language transfer and interference in Chinese ESL writings. Four Chinese graduate students each composed two expository essays in English and two in Chinese and their writing sessions were videotaped. Essays were scrutinized for cohesion and coherence features, and along with transcripts, interviews and observations, they were examined for evidence of transfers and interferences. Findings indicate that the Chinese language depends more on lexical ties and similarities of structures whereas English employs more connectors. References in Chinese often take the form of lexical repetition and sometimes zero anaphora while English uses more pronouns and deictics. In addition, more ellipses are utilized in Chinese. Coherence features show that Chinese essays are more implicit and general while English writings emphasize explicitness with thesis statements and topic sentences. Chinese writings are writer-centered, and demand more of the reader to make sense of the text. Interferences and transfers were identified. Students were unable to use a variety of connectors that English offers in their own writings and often connections were missing and sometimes misleading. They occasionally failed to mark sentence boundaries; their essays often lacked a clearly defined thesis; and topic sentences were rarely used. The discussion was general, implicit, and writer-centered. === Ed. D.