Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 2 – uploaded by Ayodele ALLAGBE

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 2: Frequency Distribution of Reference Chains in the Texts Table 2 clearly shows that there is little or no major difference in the number of reference chains the ten texts under study contain. It also reveals that the texts contain 2 major participant chains including 3 or more items. Recall that Texts 1-5 (Set 1) were written on the same topic while Texts 6-10 (Set 2) on the same topic. As the analysis clearly reveals, the head items of longest chains in Set 1 are similar both in number and type. There are actually two head items in the longest chains: ‘Cell phones & students’ in Text 1, ‘Cell phone & students’ in Text 2, ‘Cell phones & the students’ in Text 3, ‘Cell phone & student’ in Text 4 and ‘Cell phone & some students’ in Text 5. These head items obviously seem to reflect the main focus of the students’ essay-writing question: ‘Students should be allowed to use cell phones in class. Do you agree or disagree?’ However, the head items structurally differ a bit in that while they are given in the plural form as the case is in Text 1, for instance, they are given in the singular form as the case is in Text 4, for example, or a combination of singular and plural forms as in Text 2. They also differ with regards to the number of times they occur in reference chains. Surprisingly, Text 1 which scored a lower mark compared to Text 4, for example, apparently seems to include the head item ‘Cell phones’ in the same number of chains (7 reference chains) as Text 4 does. But it seems to include the head item ‘students’ in a slightly greater number of reference chains (23 chains) compared to Text 4 still, which perceptibly includes it in 17 chains.

Table 2 Frequency Distribution of Reference Chains in the Texts Table 2 clearly shows that there is little or no major difference in the number of reference chains the ten texts under study contain. It also reveals that the texts contain 2 major participant chains including 3 or more items. Recall that Texts 1-5 (Set 1) were written on the same topic while Texts 6-10 (Set 2) on the same topic. As the analysis clearly reveals, the head items of longest chains in Set 1 are similar both in number and type. There are actually two head items in the longest chains: ‘Cell phones & students’ in Text 1, ‘Cell phone & students’ in Text 2, ‘Cell phones & the students’ in Text 3, ‘Cell phone & student’ in Text 4 and ‘Cell phone & some students’ in Text 5. These head items obviously seem to reflect the main focus of the students’ essay-writing question: ‘Students should be allowed to use cell phones in class. Do you agree or disagree?’ However, the head items structurally differ a bit in that while they are given in the plural form as the case is in Text 1, for instance, they are given in the singular form as the case is in Text 4, for example, or a combination of singular and plural forms as in Text 2. They also differ with regards to the number of times they occur in reference chains. Surprisingly, Text 1 which scored a lower mark compared to Text 4, for example, apparently seems to include the head item ‘Cell phones’ in the same number of chains (7 reference chains) as Text 4 does. But it seems to include the head item ‘students’ in a slightly greater number of reference chains (23 chains) compared to Text 4 still, which perceptibly includes it in 17 chains.

Related Figures (2)

Table 1: Frequency Distribution of Conjunctive Relations in the Texts comprises 9 conjunctive relations in total, out of which 7 (i.e., 77.77%) are implicitly stamped. This clearly suggests that this text, unlike Text 1, has little explicit conjunctive structure, which is suggestive of a spoken mode. The dominant category of conjunction identified in the text is enhancing. In fact, 6 (i.e., 66.66%) out of the 9 conjunctive elements identified in the text are enhancing. The predominant use of enhancing conjunctive relations in this text denotes that the text is much more concerned with explaining by stating causes, consequences, conditions or concessions, time, etc. The remaining 3 (i.e., 33.33%) conjunctive items used in the text are all elaborating, and their use indicates that the text is internally or rhetorically structured to some extent. And this points to a written mode. As the table above clearly exudes, Text 1 contains 12 conjunctive relations, out of which 9 (..e., 75%) are explicitly stamped. This suggests thus that this text is somehow well-rehearsed in that it is only in a well-rehearsed written text that one naturally finds such an explicit conjunctive structure. The presence of the 3 (i.e., 25%) implicit conjunctive items in the text, on the contrary, denotes a spoken mode. In fact, the 12 conjunctive elements identified in this text are evenly distributed: 4 (33.33%) elaborating, 4 (33.33%) extending and 4 (33.33%) enhancing. This implies that Text | is equally concerned with explaining by restating information in another way, with explaining either through addition (i.e., one sentence adds to the meanings made in another), or variation (i.e., one sentence changes the meanings of another, by contrast or by qualification), and with explaining by stating causes, consequences, conditions or concessions, time, etc. As elaboration is an internal (rhetorical) conjunctive relation, its use in this text is indicative of a written mode. The table also shows that Table 2
Table 1: Frequency Distribution of Conjunctive Relations in the Texts comprises 9 conjunctive relations in total, out of which 7 (i.e., 77.77%) are implicitly stamped. This clearly suggests that this text, unlike Text 1, has little explicit conjunctive structure, which is suggestive of a spoken mode. The dominant category of conjunction identified in the text is enhancing. In fact, 6 (i.e., 66.66%) out of the 9 conjunctive elements identified in the text are enhancing. The predominant use of enhancing conjunctive relations in this text denotes that the text is much more concerned with explaining by stating causes, consequences, conditions or concessions, time, etc. The remaining 3 (i.e., 33.33%) conjunctive items used in the text are all elaborating, and their use indicates that the text is internally or rhetorically structured to some extent. And this points to a written mode. As the table above clearly exudes, Text 1 contains 12 conjunctive relations, out of which 9 (..e., 75%) are explicitly stamped. This suggests thus that this text is somehow well-rehearsed in that it is only in a well-rehearsed written text that one naturally finds such an explicit conjunctive structure. The presence of the 3 (i.e., 25%) implicit conjunctive items in the text, on the contrary, denotes a spoken mode. In fact, the 12 conjunctive elements identified in this text are evenly distributed: 4 (33.33%) elaborating, 4 (33.33%) extending and 4 (33.33%) enhancing. This implies that Text | is equally concerned with explaining by restating information in another way, with explaining either through addition (i.e., one sentence adds to the meanings made in another), or variation (i.e., one sentence changes the meanings of another, by contrast or by qualification), and with explaining by stating causes, consequences, conditions or concessions, time, etc. As elaboration is an internal (rhetorical) conjunctive relation, its use in this text is indicative of a written mode. The table also shows that Table 2
Table 3: Frequency Distribution of Lexical Relations in the Texts lexical items). As the analysis shows, these texts also have the same number of major strings. This suggests that Texts 6 and 7 have a more sustained focus on topic compared to Texts 8, 9 and 10. On the contrary, Texts 8, 9 and 10 have a far greater number of lexical strings (comprising two or more lexical items). However, only few of these lexical strings constitute major strings in Texts 8 and 9. In Text 10 where they seem to constitute a greater number of major strings, the text does not exhibit a sign of a tightness of focus and a careful selection of lexical items. Another proof illustrating and supporting the foregoing claim is the number of lexical items in strings over the total number of words in each text. Apart from Text 1 wherein the number of lexical items in strings is slightly more than 20 per cent, in the rest, it is less than 20 per cent. As it appears in Table 3, there is little difference between Texts 1-5 (Set 1) and Texts 6-10 (Set 2) in terms of the number of lexical strings they comprise. In Set 1, for instance, Texts 2 and 4 contain three lexical strings (consisting of two or more lexical items) each. But these texts differ slightly with regards to the number of major lexical strings (including four or more lexical items) they encompass. While Text 2 has three major strings, Text 4 only contains two. This clearly indicates that one of the lexical strings in Text 4 is short, suggesting thus that this text has a less sustained focus on topic compared to Text 2. In the same vein, Texts 1, 3 and 5 consist of in that order six, four and five lexical strings (containing two or more lexical items). But only four, three and _ three respectively out of these lexical strings really constitute major strings. This implies that these texts have a relatively more sustained focus on topic. In Set 2, the same observation can be made. The lexical relations identified in the texts are ibularized in Table 3.
Table 3: Frequency Distribution of Lexical Relations in the Texts lexical items). As the analysis shows, these texts also have the same number of major strings. This suggests that Texts 6 and 7 have a more sustained focus on topic compared to Texts 8, 9 and 10. On the contrary, Texts 8, 9 and 10 have a far greater number of lexical strings (comprising two or more lexical items). However, only few of these lexical strings constitute major strings in Texts 8 and 9. In Text 10 where they seem to constitute a greater number of major strings, the text does not exhibit a sign of a tightness of focus and a careful selection of lexical items. Another proof illustrating and supporting the foregoing claim is the number of lexical items in strings over the total number of words in each text. Apart from Text 1 wherein the number of lexical items in strings is slightly more than 20 per cent, in the rest, it is less than 20 per cent. As it appears in Table 3, there is little difference between Texts 1-5 (Set 1) and Texts 6-10 (Set 2) in terms of the number of lexical strings they comprise. In Set 1, for instance, Texts 2 and 4 contain three lexical strings (consisting of two or more lexical items) each. But these texts differ slightly with regards to the number of major lexical strings (including four or more lexical items) they encompass. While Text 2 has three major strings, Text 4 only contains two. This clearly indicates that one of the lexical strings in Text 4 is short, suggesting thus that this text has a less sustained focus on topic compared to Text 2. In the same vein, Texts 1, 3 and 5 consist of in that order six, four and five lexical strings (containing two or more lexical items). But only four, three and _ three respectively out of these lexical strings really constitute major strings. This implies that these texts have a relatively more sustained focus on topic. In Set 2, the same observation can be made. The lexical relations identified in the texts are ibularized in Table 3.
Related topics:
Language Education
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved