The present research aims at investigating the way Taiwanese EFL learners achieve cohesion in their writings. The system of Theme was adopted as the framework of text analysis since it addressed the textual meaning of a text, and Thematic Progression (TP) was investigated so as to indicate the flow of information across a longer stretch of text. The difference of TP in higher-rated and lower-rated writings was explore and compared in order to deepen our understanding on the features of successful TP strategies and the weakness of cohesion in expository writings written by Taiwanese EFL learners.
Summary of Major Findings
Based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis on higher-rated and lower-rated expository essays, several patterns or problems of TP were indicated.
First of all, breaks, which refers to links that did not fall into any TP types, appeared to be the most dominant TP in Taiwanese students’ essays, which constituted more than 40% of total TPs in higher-rated and lower-rated essays. While it is
reasonable that a number of breaks must exist in any text, these breaks might not be a favorable way to connect information, especially for lower-rated essays. The breaks in lower-rated essays seriously damaged the cohesion of text and impaired the
development of ideas.
Second, a number of constant TPs repetitively appeared in the essays, and lower-level writers employed slightly more of this pattern than higher-lower-level counterparts.
These constant TPs should be used appropriately since a redundant sequence of constant TP may result in emphatic tone. For many lower-level writers, they even limited most of their TP strategies to constant TP, while linear TP, derived TP, or split progressions were underused.
74
Third, compared to previous studies (e.g., Ebrahimi & Ebrahimi, 2012b; Hawes
& Thomas 1997;), marked Themes were employed in a large number by in Taiwanese students’ essays, and they even appeared in larger number in lower-rated essays.
However, most of the marked Themes consisted of conjunctive adjuncts and
conjunctions, and using too many of these adjuncts might deprived the writers of the opportunities to employ other TP strategies. The writers failed to effectively use a comprehensive range of marked Theme, and their texts were frequently interrupted by redundant transitional words.
Lastly, the problem of Theme with an unclear reference was noticeable in bother higher-rated and lower-rated essays, which indicated that this grammatical problem may inhibit the deployment of TP and confused the readers. The problem of empty Rheme was also found in lower-rated essays in particular, and the Themes preceding these empty Rhemes were unable to further developed.
Pedagogical Implications
In Taiwanese EFL context, the focus of writing pedagogy has also been on local errors such as grammar and sentence structure. Although in recent years, English instructors gradually shifted the focus to global features beyond sentence level, they might still lack adequate knowledge of theoretical foundations or explicit teaching methods. The findings of the study revealed that students’ problem at discourse level, in this case, connecting information cohesively with TP, is somehow untreated.
Thematic structure and TP should thus be taught explicitly to students in class. As mentioned by previous researchers, students’ writing would be more cohesive if they are capable of selecting proper Themes which connect former information and Rhemes that link proceeding clauses (Belmonte & McCabe, 1998; Hawes & Thomas, 1997; Mellos, 2011; Moore, 2006; Wang, 2007; Witte & Faigley, 1981).
75
Consequently, the notion of Theme, Rheme, and TP might be a useful guide for students to deploy cohesive development of ideas in their writings. Based on the findings of the present study, some suggestions on the instruction and evaluation of TP are presented as follow:
First of all, the notion of Theme and Rheme should be explicitly introduced to learners. Students should be informed that Theme is the departure of message, which usually contains old information; Rheme, on the other hand, complements Theme in developing new ideas. After learners are familiar with the thematic structure of a clause, the concept of TP can be brought up to them. Each type of TP should be presented with a few representative examples, and a follow-up practice for learners to identify various TPs should be included.
Secondly, after learners acquired the notion of the Theme system and all the TP types, teachers should ask them to employ TPs in a writing task. At the very
beginning, learners should be trained to avoid breaks and establish TP links between clauses since using too many breaks is a common problem in Taiwanese writers’
essays. Students should make all efforts to utilize TP to weave their ideas.
Then, after learners can avoid breaks in their texts, they should try to use various kinds of TP in their following writing tasks. Since Taiwanese writers are inclined to repeat constant TP in their writings, the teachers should encourage them to use a variety of TPs to make their essays more interesting. After all, employing a comprehensive of TP strategy is considered a feature of higher-rated essays.
Furthermore, when composing expository essays, the number of constant TP should be limited, while linear TP or derived TP are the more effective types in this genre.
Throughout the process, both teachers and learners should keep in mind that the focus of TP is on meaning instead of grammar. Whenever learners are revising their
76
essays, teachers should direct learners’ attention to the problems concerning function.
For example, learners should check if their Rheme is empty of information or their Theme contains unclear references. They should also avoid using too many
conjunctive adverbs or conjunctions but try to improve the flow of meaning by making use of marked Themes.
Above all, the present study pointed out common problems of TP in Taiwanese students’ expository essays, and these findings could serve as the foundations for evaluation. When teachers assess students’ TP in their essays, they can regard some features as more problematic based on the findings of the present study:
(1) Repetitive occurrence of the same type of TP (e.g., constant TP) (2) A large number of breaks in the whole text
(3) Using only one TP strategy in the whole text (4) Using “There” to begin a clause for many times (5) The Theme has an unclear reference
(6) A Rheme that fails to complement the preceding Theme (7) A clause with no thematic structure
In sum, by indicating successful and unsatisfactory deployment of TP in expository essays, this study seeks to benefit writers and help them create a more cohesive text.
Limitations of this Study
Although expository essays written by Taiwanese learners were carefully analyzed in the present study to shed light on TPs, the design of the present study is not without limitations.
Firstly, this study explored the quantity and quality of TP in expository genre in order to find some generic specific features of TP, but there was not another corpus
77
which contained writings of other genres for comparison. In order to conduct a genre-oriented analyses, a corpus of narrative, descriptions, or texts of other genres might be helpful for us to gain insights of the relationship between TP and expository genre (Francis, 1989). Similarly, a native corpus of expository essays was not included, so the findings of TP in the present corpus could not be compared. Without a contrastive analysis, the features of TP in Taiwanese EFL context could only be compared with findings proposed by previous researchers.
Secondly, this study targeted the difference between higher-rated and lower-rated essays in GEPT writing tests, while the corpus was mainly made up of level 3 and level 4 essays. The writings of level 5 essays were seriously lacking, while essays of this level might be more representative of higher-rated essays than essays of level 4.
Therefore, the comparison between level 3 and level 4 essays might not amplify the discrepancy between the higher-rated and lower-rated essays.
Lastly, the small sample size might limit the interpretations of the features and patterns of TPs. Thus, the results of this study should be generalized with caution to inform the expository writings in the Taiwanese EFL contexts.
Suggestions for Future Research
Future research is obviously required, but this study is an exciting first step.
Among the many topics to be explored in the future, some important ones can be listed as follows. First, the pattern of TP in Taiwanese writers’ essays of other genres, such as description or narrative, can be further investigated. Second, the effectiveness of instruction on TP could be further explored, and more lesson plans on TP could be designed and examined. Third, essays of other levels, such as high-intermediate level could be analyzed to point out how higher-level learners construct their information structure.
78
Another area of future study that should be considered is the explicit evaluation of TP. Researchers could try to develop a more comprehensive rating scheme or method on thematic structure and TP. Furthermore, the correlation of the scores in TP and the score of average performance can be investigated to see if better command over TP contributes to higher scores in writings. These attempts will certainly benefit writing pedagogy and testing in Taiwanese EFL context.
79 REFERENCE
Albufalasa, M. I. M. A. (2013). The effect of the explicit teaching of thematic
structure and generic structure on EFL students’ writing quality and motivation.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Leicester).
Alonso, I. & McCabe, A. (2003). Improving text flow in ESL learner compositions.
The Internet TESL Journal, 9 (2). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/
Al-Sharah, N. (2012). A critical review of the theme system: Implications for language education. Dirasat: Educational Sciences, 39(1), 299-312.
Arunsirot, S. (2013). An analysis of textual metafunction in Thai EFL students' writing. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 7(2), 160-174.
Belmonte, I. A., & McCabe, A. (1998). Theme-rheme patterns in L2 writing.
Didactica, 10, 13-31.
Belmonte, I. A., & McCabe, A. (2004). The development of written discourse competence in ELT materials: A preliminary analysis. Revista Canaria De Estudios Ingleses, 49, 29-48.
Daneš, F. (1974). Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In F. Danes (Ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective (pp. 106-128).
Prague: Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences.
Chao, Kwei-hsiang. (2002). Thematic progression in the argumentative essays of EFL senior high school students. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Chengchi
University, Taipei.
Crompton, P. (2004). Theme in discourse: ‘Thematic progression’ and ‘method of development’ re-evaluated. Functions of language, 11(2), 213-249.
Downing, A. (2001). Thematic progression as a functional resource in analyzing texts.
Circle of Linguistics to Communication, 5, 25-53.
80
Ebrahimi, S. F., & Ebrahimi, S. J. (2012a). Information development in EFL students composition writing. Advances in Asian Social Science, 1(2), 212-217.
Ebrahimi, S. F., & Ebrahimi, S. J. (2012b). Markedness in writing: A case of EFL students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(4), 773-777.
Ebrahimi, S. F., & Ebrahimi, S. J. (2012c). Point of departure in texts developed by native and non-native writers. Language in India, 12(5), 109-119.
Ebrahimi, S. F., & Khedri, M. (2012). The importance of thematic structure in students' writing cohesion. Language in India, 12(4), 64-78.
Ebrahimi, S. F., & Khedri, M. (2013). Multiple theme and cohesion: A case of EFL students composition writing. Iranian EFL Journal, 9(3), 248-260.
Eggins, S. (2004). Introduction to systemic functional linguistics. A&C Black.
Francis, G. (1989). Thematic selection and distribution in written discourse.
Word, 40(1-2), 201-221.
Fries, P. R. (1995). Themes, methods of development, and texts. In R. Hasan & P. H.
Fries (Eds.), On subject and theme (pp. 317-359). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Green, C. F., Christopher, E. R., & Mei, J. L. K. (2000). The incidence and effects on coherence of marked themes in interlanguage texts: a corpus-based
enquiry. English for Specific Purposes, 19(2), 99-113.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Routledge.
Halliday, M. A., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2013). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar. Routledge.
Hawes, T., & Thomas, S. (1996). Rhetorical uses of theme in newspaper editorials.
WorldEnglishes, 15(2), 159-170.
Hawes, T., & Thomas, S. (1997). Problems of thematisation in student writing. RELC
81 Journal, 28(2), 35-55.
Hawes, T., & Thomas, S. (2012). Theme choice in EAP and media language. Journal of English for academic purposes, 11(3), 175-183.
Herriman, J. (2011). Themes and theme progression in Swedish advanced learners’
writing in English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 1-28.
Hewings, A. (2004). Developing discipline-specific writing: an analysis of
undergraduate geography essays. Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks, 131-152.
Hu, H.Y. (2008). On textual cohesion in Chinese students’ English writing. Journal of Zhejiang Normal University (Social Science), 33(3), 113-116.
Jalilifar, A. (2010). Thematization in EFL students’ composition writing and its relation to academic experience. RELC journal, 41(1), 31-45.
Jing, W. (2014). Theme and thematic progression in learner English: A literature review. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 16(1), 67-80.
Khedri, M., & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2012). The flow of information in English and Persian academic texts. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(6), 1175-1179.
Krisnawati, E. (2013). Applying theme and rheme in Indonesian EFL students’
writing: An attempt to improve cohesion and coherence. The International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 2(2), 135-145.
Kularb, S. A. (2001). The Analysis of theme and rheme in student paragraph writing:
a case study with sut students of English v, group 07, trimester 3, 2000.
Leonard, D. (2011). From narrative to analytical: using theme/rheme to scaffold students’ revisions between genres of writing. CATESOL Journal,22(2010), 216-230.
Li, Q. F. (2009). Thematic selection and progression in EFL writing. US-China
82 Foreign Language, 7(7), 25-35.
Lin, Su-yu. (2011). The improvement of coherence in EFL low achievers’ writing through the instruction of cohesive devices and thematic progression.
Unpublished master’s thesis. National Chengchi University, Taipei.
Ma, J. (2001). Thematic progression, cohesive devices and coherence in English writing--Analysis of CET-4 and CET-6 writing papers. Foreign Language Education, 22(5), 45-50.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Gener relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.
Martı́nez, I. A. (2003). Aspects of theme in the method and discussion sections of biology journal articles in English. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes,2(2), 103-123.
McCabe, A. M. (1999). Theme and thematic patterns in Spanish and English history texts. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Aston in Birmingham).
Mellos, V. D. (2011). Coherence in English as a second language undergraduate writing: A theme-rheme analysis. (Doctoral dissertation, San Diego State University).
Moore, N. A. J. (2006). Aligning theme and information structure to improve the readability of technical writing. Journal of technical writing and
communication, 36(1), 43-55.
Mustaffa, R., & Aman, I. (2007). Thematic progression in the writings of
undergraduate LEP learners. International Journal of Learning, 14(9) 68-82.
Naderi, S., & Koohestanian, F. (2014). Thematic Structures in Conference Papers by Persian EFL Scholars. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 351-356.
83
North, S. (2005). Disciplinary variation in the use of theme in undergraduate essays. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 431-452.
Rakhman, A. N. (2013). An analysis of thematic progression in high school students’
exposition texts. Passage, 1(1), 65-74.
Ren, S., Cao, Y., Gao, Y., & Li, Q. (2009). Thematic operational approach and the writing teaching of college English. Asian Social Science, 5(11), 141-146.
Shen, H. L. (2004). Improving coherence in high school students‘ English
composition through instruction of topical development. Unpublished master‘s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
Shieh, C., & Lin, K. M. (2011). Thematic progression patterns and the texts of the department required English test. Retrieved from
http://irs.lib.ksu.edu.tw/NPIC/handle/987654321/97?itemsPerPage=
50&locale=en-US.
Soleymanzadeh, L., & Gholami, J. (2014). Scoring argumentative essays based on thematic progression patterns and IELTS analytic scoring criteria. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1811-1819.
Tsai, Tsi-chuen. (2012). A Study on Theme Types in Taiwanese Senior High School Students’ Narratives. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Chengchi University, Taipei.
Wang, L. (2007). Theme and rheme in the thematic organization of text: Implications for teaching academic writing. Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 164-176.
Witte, S. P., & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College composition and communication, 32(2), 189-204.
Xu, R. (2001). Theme and cohesion in the writing of English expository texts by Chinese tertiary EFL learners. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of
84 Wollongong.
Yang, Q., Ramírez, J. A., & Harman, R. (2007). EFL Chinese students and high stakes expository writing: A theme analysis. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, (9), 99-125.
Yang, X. (2008). Thematic progression analysis in teaching explanation writing.
English Language Teaching, 1(1), 29-33.