An Investigation into the Difficulties of Using Transitional Words in Kurdish EFL Students’ Writing at the University Level
The aim of this research is to deal with the use of different kinds of transitional words in Kurdish EFL students’ writing in two different levels. Namely, Kurdish EFL second- and third-year students often encounter problems of using transitional words when they want to write any kinds of paragraphs, essays in academic writing lectures. They have particularly made various kinds of mistakes while writing argumentative or persuasive essays. This study comprises of theoretical background and data analysis for samples of writing. It also proposes possible pedagogical implications and recommendations which cover doable teaching strategies for improving writing practice and academic writing. The result shows that second year students have inadequate ability and skills to use different kinds of transitional words. On the other hand, third year students have more abilities, but they have often misrepresented or clichéd most of the types of transitional words.
Al-Jarf, R. (2001). Processing of Cohesive Ties by EFL Arab College Students. Foreign Language Annals, 34(2),141-151. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2001.tb02819.x
Bamberg, B. (1984). Assessing Coherence: A Reanalysis of Essays Written for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1969-1979. Research in the Teaching of English, 18(3), 305-319.
Braine, G. & Liu, M. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 33(4), 623-636.
Basturkmen, H. (2002). Clause Relations and Macro Patterns: Cohesion, Coherence, and the Writing of Advanced ESOL Students. The Forum, 40(1), 50-56. Available at https://americanenglish.state.gov/files/ae/resource_files/02-40-1-j.pdf
Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.) (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle&Heinle.
Chen, Y. & You, Y. (2007). Less experienced EFL writers’ knowledge and self-awareness of coherence in English writing. Selected Papers from the Sixteenth International Symposium and Book Fair on English Teaching, pp. 335-346.
Crewe, W. (1990). The illogic of logical connectives. ELT Journal, 44(4), 316–325. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.316
Cheng, Y. (2002). Factors associated with foreign language writing anxiety. Foreign language annals, 35(6), 647-656.
Carrell, P. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL quarterly, 16(4), 479-488.
Coffin, C., Curry, M., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T. & Swann, J. (2005). Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. UK: Routledge.
Connor, U. (Author & Ed.) & Johns, A. (Ed.) (1990). Coherence in Writing: Research and Pedagogical Perspectives. USA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).
Field, Y. & Oi, Y. (1992). A comparison of internal conjunctive cohesion in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English. RELC journal, 23(1), 15-28.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers?. Journal of pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952.
Halliday, M., Matthiessen, C. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). UK: Routledge.
Halliday, M. & Hasan, R. & Christie, F. (Ed.) (1989). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective (2nd ed.). England: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English (1st ed.). UK: Routledge.
Hasan, F. & Sabir, A. (2010). Sentence relations in the writing of EFL students at university Level. Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani. Part B, (29), 211-228.
Hassun, N. (2010). Discourse Analysis into the Classroom of Iraqi EFL Undergraduate Learners. Journal of University of Babylon, 18(3), 696-708. Available at https://www.iasj.net/iasj/download/6e678484d6b44b53
Heller, M. (1999). Reading-writing connections: From theory to practice. UK: Routledge.
Holland, R. & Lewis., A. (1996). Written discourse. Centre for English Language Studies. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham.
Hoey, M. (1983). On the surface of discourse. Australia: Unwin Hyman.
Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading & writing in second language writing instruction (2nd ed.). Michigan, USA: University of Michigan Press ELT.
Jalilifar, A. (2008). Discourse Markers in Composition Writings: The Case of Iranian Learners of English as a Foreign Language. English Language Teaching, 1(2), 114-122.
Johns, A. (1984). Textual cohesion and the Chinese speaker of English. Language learning and communication, 3(1), 69-73.
Johns, A. (1980). Cohesion in written business discourse: Some contrasts. The ESP Journal, 1(1), 35-43.
Johnson, P. (1992). Cohesion and coherence in compositions in Malay and English. RELC journal, 23(2), 1-17.
Khalil, A. (1989). A study of cohesion and coherence in Arab EFL college students' writing. System, 17(3), 359-371.
Lee, I. (2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: a classroom inquiry. Journal of second language writing, 11(2), 135-159.
Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. Tesol Quarterly, 25(1), 123-143.
Lichtenberk, F. (1991). On the gradualness of grammaticalization. Approaches to grammaticalization, 1, 37-80.
Martínez, A. (2004). Discourse markers in the expository writing of Spanish university students. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE), (8), 63-80.
McCarthy, M. & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse. Harlow, UK: Longman.
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Mezo, R. (2001). Concepts and Choices: A Writer's Companion and Personal Advisor. USA: Universal-Publishers.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology. USA: Prentice Hall.
Rahimi, M. (2011). Discourse markers in argumentative and expository writing of Iranian EFL learners. World Journal of English Language, 1(2), 68.
Reichelt, M. (2001). A critical review of foreign language writing research on pedagogical approaches. The Modern Language Journal, 85(4), 578-598.
Richards, J. & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (4th ed.). UK: Routledge
Richards, J. & Renandya, W. (Eds.). (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Saminan., S. (2011). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 45-65.
Sanders, T. & Noordman, L. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse processes, 29(1), 37-60.
Thurston, J. & Candlin, C. (1998). Concordancing and the teaching of the vocabulary of academic English. English for specific purposes, 17(3), 267-280.
Wu, S. (2006). Connectives and topic-fronting devices in academic writing: Taiwanese EFL student writers vs. international writers. In 2006 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL and Applied Linguistics pp. 417-425.
Winter, E. (1994). Clause relations as information structure: Two basic text structures in English. Advances in written text analysis, pp. 60-82.
Wikborg, E. (1990). Types of coherence breaks in Swedish student writing: Misleading paragraph division. Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives, 131-149.
Yoon, H. (2006). A corpus-based analysis of connectors in Korean students’ essay writing. 응용언어학, 22(2), 159-178.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0] that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).