The study investigated how EFL, ESL, and NS college students organize information compared to NS professionals by examining their thematic choices.
Generally, it was found that the EFL students deployed significantly more textual and marked Themes than NS professionals to achieve cohesion explicitly. The ESL students utilize patterns of Themes similar to those of the NS professionals. The NS students had significantly more textual and interpersonal Themes than NS professionals, and the textual and interpersonal Themes tend to contain more informal registers.
Quantitative Differences of Thematic Choices in the Groups
Research question 1 inquires the quantitative differences of textual, interpersonal, and marked Themes in the EFL, ESL, and NS groups compared to NS professionals.
Table 2 below reports the mean and standard deviation of the thematic choices in the four groups. The last row shows the mean and standard deviation of the total textual, interpersonal, and marked Themes. Textual Themes (M=4.71, SD=2.50) are the most frequent type and interpersonal Themes (M=2.62, SD=1.90) are the least frequent type used by the four groups.
The far right column shows the mean and standard deviation of the total Themes applied by each group. CHI ranks first in total Themes (M=4.22, SD=1.04) with the highest textual Themes (M=6, SD=2.19) and the highest marked Themes (M=4.1, SD=1.68). ENS ranks second in total Themes (M=3.70, SD=1.44) with the highest interpersonal Themes (M=3.35, SD=2.05). SIN ranks third in total Themes (M=3.14,
SD=1.03). The mean of SIN’s textual (M=4.17, SD=2.39), interpersonal (M=2.27, SD=1.74), and marked Themes (M=2.98, SD=1.62) is close to those of PRO. PRO has the fewest total Themes (M=2.83, SD=1.03), with the lowest textual (M=3.53, SD=1.99) Themes.
Table 2. Mean and standard deviation of different Themes in the four groups
textual interpersonal marked Total Themes
Group M SD M SD M SD M SD
CHI 6 2.19 2.55 2.05 4.1 1.68 4.22 1.04
SIN 4.17 2.39 2.27 1.74 2.98 1.62 3.14 1.03
ENS 5.13 2.69 3.35 2.05 2.62 1.35 3.70 1.44
PRO 3.53 1.99 2.32 1.53 2.63 1.73 2.83 1.03
Total 4.71 2.50 2.62 1.90 3.08 1.70 3.47 1.26 Note: M = Mean, and SD = Standard Deviation.
In order to clarify if the different patterns of thematic choices reach a statistically significant level, a 4X3 two-way mixed design ANOVA is conducted. The significant level is set at the .05. The result of the ANOVA is presented in Table 3. According to Table 3, there is a significant difference in the main effects of Themes (F=77.23, p<.01), indicating that the quantitative differences of the three Themes reach a significant level.
There is also a significant difference in the main effects of groups (F=17.19, p<.01).
This suggests that the four groups deploy Themes differently, which is also statistically significant. Also, the interaction between Themes and groups reaches significant level (F=6.28, p<.01). The ANOVA result indicates that the frequency of the three Themes is significantly different in the groups. A post-hoc test is needed to locate any significant differences of the three Themes in the four groups.
Table 3. Two-way ANOVA result
Source Sum of
Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
Theme 576.98 2 288.49 77.23 .00
Group 203.85 3 67.95 17.19 .00
Theme * group 140.64 6 23.44 6.28 .00
The result of the post-hoc test is reported in Table 4 below. In terms of total Themes, CHI, SIN, and ENS deploy different number of textual, interpersonal, and marked Themes and this difference reaches significant level. CHI has significantly more Themes than SIN (M: 4.22 vs 3.14, p<.01) and ENS (M: 4.22 vs 3.70, p<.05), and ENS has significantly more Themes than SIN (M: 3.70 vs 3.14, p<.05). When compared with PRO, CHI and ENS have significantly more Themes than PRO (M: 4.22 vs 3.70 vs 2.83, p<.01), and there is no significant difference between SIN and PRO (M:
3.14 vs 2.83, p>.05).
Table 4. Multiple comparisons of different Themes in the four groups
Dependent
Variable (I) group (J) group Mean Difference
(I-J) Std.
Note: Based on observed means. The error term is Mean Square (Error) 1.32.
*p<.05, **p<.01
In terms of textual Themes, CHI has significantly more textual Themes than SIN (M: 6 vs 4.17, p<.01) and ENS (M: 6 vs 5.13, p<.05), and ENS has significantly more textual Themes than SIN (M: 5.13 vs 4.17, p<.05). Compared with PRO, CHI and ENS have significantly more textual Themes than PRO (M: 6 vs 5.13 vs 3.53, p<.01) and no significant difference is found between SIN and PRO (M: 4.17 vs 3.53, p>.05).
With regard to interpersonal Themes, there is no significant difference between CHI and SIN (M: 2.55 vs 2.27, p>.05) while ENS has significantly more interpersonal Themes than CHI (M: 3.35 vs 2.55, p<.05) and SIN (M: 3.35 vs 2.27, p<.01). When compared with PRO, there is no significant difference between CHI, SIN, and PRO (M: 2.55 vs 2.27 vs 2.32, p>.05), and ENS has significantly more interpersonal Themes than PRO (M: 3.35 vs 2.32, p<.01).
As to marked Themes, CHI uses significantly more marked Themes than SIN and ENS (M: 4.1 vs 2.98 vs 2.62, p<.01) while there is no significant difference between SIN, ENS, and PRO (M: 2.98 vs 2.62 vs 2.63, p>.05).
In sum, CHI, SIN, and ENS deploy different amounts of Themes and this difference reaches a significant level. When compared with PRO, CHI uses significantly more textual and marked Themes (p<.01). ENS applies significantly more textual and interpersonal Themes (p<.01). There is no significant difference in each of the Themes between SIN and PRO (p>.05). The result suggests that CHI and ENS deviate from PRO in certain Themes and that SIN exhibits patterns of thematic choices similar to those of PRO.
This section has reported the quantitative difference of thematic choices in the four groups. The following section will report the results of the qualitative analysis of the Themes in the four groups.
Qualitative Differences of Thematic Choices in the Groups
Research question 2 investigates the qualitative differences of textual, interpersonal, and marked Themes in the EFL, ESL, NS student groups compared to NS professionals. Specifically, the study explores if the textual Themes are informal or formal, if the interpersonal Themes are subjective or objective, and if the marked Themes develop the topic.
Informal and Formal Textual Themes
In the previous quantitative analysis, it is found that both CHI and ENS have significantly more textual Themes than PRO while there is no significant difference between SIN and PRO in textual Themes. The qualitative analysis reveals that CHI, SIN, and ENS deploy textual Themes in different manners and that SIN uses textual Themes in a way similar to PRO.
An analysis between the textual Themes by CHI and ENS reveals that CHI tends to use formal conjunctive adjuncts while ENS opts for informal conjunctions. In fact, in CHI’s essays, the number of conjunctive adjuncts doubles that of conjunctions. In 43 of the 60 essays by CHI, there exist more conjunctive adjuncts than conjunctions, and 33 of the 43 essays draw on conjunctive adjuncts of enumeration (e.g., first of all, second, finally) to organize information.
Example 14 below illustrates the textual Theme pattern in CHI’s essays. In Example 14, seven textual Themes are located in eight T-units. Five of the textual Themes are conjunctive adjuncts of enumeration, addition, and summary (i.e., First, Besides, In addition, Last but not the least, As a result) and two are conjunctions (i.e., and).
Example 14. An example of CHI’s textual Theme pattern (CHI_SMK0_166)
TX Theme Topical Theme Rheme
T1 smoking should be completely banned at all the smoke but under attack by second-hand smoke, which may do harm to their health and cause big problems to them.
T6 Last but not the least,
no matter you smoke or not,
it is extremely harmful to human beings when smell the smoke created by
By contrast, ENS tends to apply more informal conjunctions than formal conjunctive adjuncts. The number of conjunctions is nearly three times more than that of conjunctive adjuncts. Forty-six of the 60 essays have more conjunctions than conjunctive adjuncts. Only seven of the essays draw on conjunctive adjuncts of enumeration to organize information.
Example 15 below illustrates this pattern. Within eight T-units, five T-units start with conjunctions (in bold, and so, or, but, and), and only one T-unit starts with a conjunctive adjunct (i.e., Also) in T7. Informal conjunctions of and, but, so are chosen instead of more formal moreover, however, therefore. Due to the plenty informal textual Themes, the example reads more colloquial than academic.
In addition to the informal textual Themes, ENS’s choices of textual Themes appear limited and are less effective in organizing information. For example, ENS repeats and three times in Example 15 whereas CHI deploys more varied additive devices, such as besides, and, and in addition in Example 14.
Example 15. An example of ENS’s textual Theme pattern (ENS_PTJ0_062)
TX Theme Topical Theme Rheme
T1 For myself and many
other girls,
we like to shop a lot,
T2 and so it is good to have a continuous flow of income so that we're not cutting into our savings more conjunctive adjuncts than conjunctions. Around 71% of the interpersonal Themes by SIN are conjunctive adjuncts. Of the 60 essays by SIN, 47 of them have more conjunctive adjuncts than conjunctions.
Although CHI, SIN, and PRO opt for formal conjunctive adjuncts, CHI achieves cohesion differently from SIN and PRO by placing conjunctive adjuncts in the beginning of a clause as evidenced in Example 14. On the contrary, SIN and PRO
apply fewer conjunctive adjuncts than CHI, but most of the essays are cohesive. One possible explanation is that SIN and PRO may reach cohesion implicitly through lexical cohesion. Lexical cohesion is achieved by lexical chains, or chains of semantically related words (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). Over half of the essays by SIN and PRO achieve cohesion implicitly through lexical cohesion rather than conjunctive adjuncts. Examples 16 and 17 below illustrate the pattern.
In Example 16 drawn from SIN, there is only one conjunctive adjunct Thus in T8 in eight T-units, but Example 16 is cohesive due to the lexical cohesion. Two strings of lexical chains are located. One lexical chain is about smoking and the other is about restaurants. Both of the lexical chains elaborate the topic banning smoking in restaurants. The first lexical chain about smoking (in grey) runs from T1 to T8. The second lexical chain about restaurants (dashed) appears in T2, T3, T6, T7 and T8. The two strings of lexical chains proceed separately in T1, T4, and T5, and intersect in T2, T3, T6, and T7 until they converge (underlined) in T8, making the messages tightly connected. As the lexical chains proceed, some meanings are added to the chain to enrich and elaborate the argument. For example, smoking in T1 becomes it being completely banned in T4, and foul smoke in T6. Also, restaurants in T2 is expanded to diners, dining experiences in the Rheme of T2, alternative place to dine in in T3, tables in T6, demarcation, and non demarcated areas in T7.
Example 16. An example of SIN’s textual Theme Pattern (SIN_ SMK0_004)
TX Theme Topical Theme Rheme
T1 Smoking is bad for health, not just for the
smoker but also the people around them.
T2 At restaurants, diners have their rights to fully enjoy their dining experience.
T3 If smoking is not
completely banned,
many diners will either have to suffer in silence and be engulfed in the smoke or to choose alternative place to dine in.
T4 The reason for it being completely banned and not partially or fully unbanned
is simple.
T5 Smoke can diffuse easily in air which can
spread to a much further location from the point where the smoker is.
the smoke does not restrict itself from spreading to non demarcated areas.
T8 Thus, other non smoking diners will still be able to smell the smoke.
The similar pattern can be found in P O’s essays. Around two-thirds of the essays achieve cohesion through lexical cohesion rather than textual Themes. In Example 17, only one textual Theme First is applied in T1 in eight T-units, but the essay is cohesive.
Three strings of lexical chains about democracy, restaurants, and smoking are found in Example 17. The first lexical chain of democracy (in gray) appears from T1 to T4 and T7 to T8. The second lexical chain of restaurants (gray and underlined) runs from T3 to T8. The third lexical chain of smoking (dashed) shows from T4 to T6 and T8. The first and second strings of lexical chains meet in T3 and T7. The second and third strings join in T5 and T6. Three of the strings converge in T4 and T8.
The frequent convergence of the lexical chains makes the messages in Example 17 tightly connected. In addition, some related meanings are expanded to the chains.
For example democratic in T1 becomes the right to choose in T2 and This right of choice in T3, which then narrows down to employees’ and patrons’ right of choice in T7 and their right in T8.
Example 17. An example of PRO’s textual Theme Pattern (PRO_SMK0_114)
TX Theme Topical Theme Rheme
T1 First, we (thankfully) live not in a communist or fascist nation, but in a democratic one.
T2 The underlying pillar of a democracy
is the right to choose how to live.
T3 This right of choice must extend to restaurants.
T4 Ownership should have the right to permit
smoking on their premises.
T5 Ownership must, however, be clear in letting
both their employees and customers
T7 In this manner, both future employees and patrons
can exercise their right of choice.
T8 If they wish to accept the harm that smoking related illnesses cause,
it is indeed their right.
In sum, CHI, SIN, and ENS deploy textual Themes differently, and SIN applies textual Themes in a way similar to PRO. CHI tends to deploy more formal and varied conjunctive adjuncts to explicitly guide readers and organize information. By contrast, ENS tends to use more informal and limited conjunctions, which makes the essays more colloquial and less organized.
SIN and PRO also deploy more conjunctive adjuncts but their number of conjunctive adjuncts is lower than that of CHI. SIN and PRO use lexical cohesion to achieve cohesion implicitly (Halliday & Hasan, 1976) while CHI achieves cohesion explicitly through textual Themes and render overly cohesive essays.
Subjective and Objective Interpersonal Themes
The qualitative analysis of interpersonal Themes explores if the interpersonal Themes in the groups are subjective or objective using Halliday’s (1994) modal responsibility scale, from explicit subjective, implicit subjective, implicit objective, to explicit objective.
The qualitative analysis shows that over 60% of the interpersonal Themes by the four groups are subjective. However, ENS has more subjective and fewer objective interpersonal Themes than the other groups. In ENS’s essays, the explicit subjective interpersonal Themes account for 71% of the total interpersonal Themes. Also, 10%
of ENS’s explicit subjective interpersonal Themes are strong in tone (e.g., I just can’t believe). ENS also has the lowest percentage of objective interpersonal Themes, which account for 28% of ENS’s total interpersonal Themes.
By contrast, CHI, SIN, and PRO have fewer subjective interpersonal Themes.
Around 55% to 60% of interpersonal Themes in CHI, SIN, and PRO are explicit subjective. Also, none of the explicit subjective interpersonal Themes by CHI, SIN, and PRO is strong in tone. CHI, SIN, and PRO also have higher percentage of objective interpersonal Themes. The objective interpersonal Themes in CHI, SIN, and PRO are between 35% and 41%. Examples 18 to 21 below present the two different patterns. Example 18 illustrates ENS’s interpersonal Theme pattern. Examples 19 to 21 illustrate the interpersonal Theme pattern shared by CHI, SIN, and PRO.
In Example 18 by ENS, five interpersonal Themes (bold) are used within six T-units. The first four interpersonal Themes from T1 to T4 as well as the three expressions (underlined) in T1 (i.e., even went so far as to), T2 (i.e., honestly somewhat), and T3 (i.e., just can't) are colloquial and strong in tone, with which the writer runs the risk of having the argument dismissed as emotional reactions (Schleppegrell, 2004).
Example 18. An example of ENS’s interpersonal Theme pattern (ENS_SMK0_006)
TX/IN Theme Topical Theme Rheme
T1 One of my girlfriends because all it does is make you smell bad and greatly increase your risks of cancer.
T4 But I think that many kids start smoking in high school to be cool or to fit in with their friends and simply cannot stop even if
By contrast, in essays by CHI, SIN, and PRO, none of the subjective interpersonal Themes is strong in tone. Also, more objective interpersonal Themes are found, which help express judgments as facts rather than personal opinions (Herriman
& Boström Aronsson, 2009). In Example 19 drawn from CHI, four interpersonal Themes (bold) are applied in six T-units. Two of them are explicit subjective interpersonal Themes as in T1 (i.e., I do agree that) and T5 (i.e., I think), and two of them are explicit objective interpersonal Themes as in T2 (i.e., It is important) and T3 (i.e., Researches have shown that). None of the subjective interpersonal Themes is strong in tone.
Example 19. An example of CHI’s interpersonal Theme pattern (CHI_SMK0_124)
IN Theme Topical Theme Rheme
T1 I do agree that smoking should be completely banned at all the restaurants in the
country.
T2 It is important for people who smoke should follow the rule.
T3 Researches have shown that
the tobacco smoke harm people around the smoke people than people who smoke.
T4 So I really do agree this.
T5 I think restaurants should set an area where people can smoke.
T6 This action has been practiced in some
restaurants in Taiwan
Similarly, in SIN’s essays, none of the subjective interpersonal Themes is strong in tone, and there are more objective interpersonal Themes than in ENS’s essays. In
Example 20 drawn from SIN, three interpersonal Themes are applied in six T-units.
Two of them are explicit subject as in T1 (i.e., I agree that) and T2 (i.e., I believe), and one of them is explicit objective as in T3 (i.e., it has been proven that).
Example 20. An example of SIN’s interpersonal Theme patterns (SIN_SMK0_092) IN Theme Topical Theme Rheme
T1 I agree that smoking should be completely banned at all the restaurants in the country, especially so for restaurants that are air-conditioned or have al fresco dining options where customers can eat in the open.
T2 I believe everyone including smokers themselves
know the disadvantages of smoking.
T3 and it has been proven that
Studies have been done to analyze the awareness of smokers about the
detrimental impacts that smoking has on their health,
T4 they indeed know what they are doing to
their body, at least have an idea so.
T5 That being said, many people are also aware of the disadvantages of second-hand smoking
T6 and thus we should prevent this from happening
much as we are able to since
second-hand smoking is not something that we can avoid by choice.
Similar to CHI and SIN, PRO’s subjective interpersonal Themes are not strong in tone and more objective interpersonal Themes are applied. In Example 21 drawn from PRO, two interpersonal Themes are used in 6 T-units. One is subjective as in T1 (i.e., I don’t believe that) and the other is objective as in T2 (i.e., there is also irrefutable evidence to prove that).
Example 21. An example of PRO’s interpersonal Theme pattern (PRO_SMK0_133)
IN Theme Topical Theme Rheme
T1 I don't believe that anybody is arguing against any adult's right to smoke as they see fit.
T2 But, there is also irrefutable evidence to prove that
passive smokers end up paying the same price as smokers do in terms of health issues and disease.
T3 For some reason, smokers get the impression that
they are being discriminated against or their civil rights are being violated in some manner when the reality is, it's the non smokers who are having their rights violated.
T4 Smokers abound everywhere, walking
around blowing harmful smoke
it is difficult to see how smokers feel so offended and picked on.
T6 Japan, like many countries, have taken
counter measures and passed legislation related to automobile emissions, factory wastage
disposal, chimney stack emissions and the list goes on.
To summarize, ENS deploys interpersonal Themes differently from CHI and SIN while CHI’s and SIN’s interpersonal Theme patterns are similar to PRO’s. ENS tends to apply more explicit subjective interpersonal Themes that are sometimes strong in tone. ENS also applies fewer objective interpersonal Themes. By contrast, none of the subjective interpersonal Themes by CHI, SIN, and PRO is strong in tone, and more objective interpersonal Themes are utilized.
Marked Themes and Topic Continuity
Marked Themes refer to the topical Theme choices other than the grammatical
Marked Themes refer to the topical Theme choices other than the grammatical