Coherence Errors in Iranian EFL Learners' Writing: A Rhetorical Structure Theory Approach

One of the key elements in the organization of any piece of writing is its coherence. To date, many propositions have been given regarding the definition, analysis, and evaluation of text coherence. In the current study, Mann and Thompson's (1988) Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) was adopted as the method of text analysis to detect the coherence breaks in writing samples. In order to see what problems Iranian EFL learners have with regard to text coherence, 64 essays in descriptive and argumentative genres written by male students of a language institute in Shiraz were analyzed. The essays were analyzed for discourse errors using RST. The findings indicated that Iranian EFL learners committed eight different types of coherence errors, namely irrelevant content, violation of completedness, violation of connectedness, incorrect place, incorrect relation, crossed dependency, scattered units, and topic. The reason behind these errors partly came from the learners' tendency to write in an inductive order, and partly from their inability to coherently connect the constituent parts of their texts together. Genre difference was also proved to be significant in the number of coherence relations and in the type and number of coherence errors. In general, descriptive writing samples were more coherent than argumentative ones. Keywords: Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST), coherence errors, descriptive writing, argumentative writing, genre.

[1]  Jean Carletta,et al.  Assessing Agreement on Classification Tasks: The Kappa Statistic , 1996, CL.

[2]  Teresa O'brien,et al.  Rhetorical Structure Analysis and the Case of the Inaccurate, Incoherent Source-Hopper. , 1995 .

[3]  R. Geluykens,et al.  Rhetorical relations and subordination in L2 writing , 1998 .

[4]  William C. Mann,et al.  RHETORICAL STRUCTURE THEORY: A THEORY OF TEXT ORGANIZATION , 1987 .

[5]  Anders Bouwer An ITS for Dutch Punctuation , 1998, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[6]  Robert E. Longacre,et al.  The Paragraph as a Grammatical Unit , 1979 .

[7]  Scott Weinstein,et al.  Centering: A Framework for Modeling the Local Coherence of Discourse , 1995, CL.

[8]  Edward H. Hovy,et al.  Unresolved issues in paragraph planning , 1990 .

[9]  M. Taboada,et al.  DISCOURSE MARKERS AS SIGNALS (OR NOT) OF RHETORICAL RELATIONS , 2006 .

[10]  Peter B. Mosenthal,et al.  Defining the expository discourse continuum , 1985 .

[11]  R. Knudson Effects of Task Complexity on Narrative Writing. , 1992 .

[12]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Strategies of discourse comprehension , 1983 .

[13]  Markus Egg,et al.  Underspecified discourse representation , 2005 .

[14]  V. Dijk,et al.  Macrostructures , 2019 .

[15]  J. Weibler,et al.  Discourse , 1984, Language in Society.

[16]  M. Taboada Rhetorical relations in dialogue: A contrastive study , 2004 .

[17]  Joseph E. Grimes,et al.  The Thread of Discourse , 1984 .

[18]  Marie-Paule Pery-Woodley,et al.  Signalling in written text: a corpus-based approach , 1998 .

[19]  J. Callow,et al.  Translating the Word of God, with scripture and topical indexes , 1977 .

[20]  W. Mann,et al.  Rhetorical Structure Theory: looking back and moving ahead , 2006 .

[21]  Livia Polanyi,et al.  A Theory of Discourse Structure and Discourse Coherence in Papers from the General Session at the Twenty-First Regional Meeting. , 1985 .

[22]  Zdeněk Salzmann The study of language 2nd edn. By George Yule (review) , 2015 .

[23]  Marion Crowhurst,et al.  Cohesion in Argument and Narration at Three Grade Levels , 1987, Research in the Teaching of English.

[24]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse , 1986, CL.

[25]  J. Hobbs On the coherence and structure of discourse , 1985 .

[26]  Barbara A. Fox Discourse Structure and Anaphora: References , 1987 .

[27]  Alex Lascarides,et al.  Discourse Relations and Defeasible Knowledge , 1991, ACL.

[28]  Tony Berber Sardinha Building Coherence and Cohesion: Task-oriented Dialogue in English and Spanish , 2006, Computational Linguistics.

[29]  M.-P. Pery-Woodley Modes d'organisation et de signalisation dans des textes procéduraux , 2001 .

[30]  K. Kong,et al.  Are simple business request letters really simple? A comparison of Chinese and English business request letters , 1998 .

[31]  Maite Taboada Collaborating through Talk: The Interactive Construction of Task-Oriented Dialogue in English and in Spanish , 2001 .

[32]  Mark Torrance,et al.  Rhetorical structure analysis as a method for understanding writing processes , 2001 .

[33]  D. L. Ballard,et al.  More on the deep and surface grammar of interclausal relations , 1971 .

[34]  Judy Delin,et al.  Identifying Congruent Pragmatic Relations in Procedural Texts , 1998 .

[35]  J. Bateman,et al.  Coherence relations: Towards a general specification , 1997 .

[36]  Leo G. M. Noordman,et al.  Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations , 1992 .

[37]  Sophia Skoufaki,et al.  An Exploratory Application of Rhetorical Structure Theory to Detect Coherence Errors in L2 English Writing: Possible Implications for Automated Writing Evaluation Software , 2009, Int. J. Comput. Linguistics Chin. Lang. Process..

[38]  Rachel Reichman,et al.  Conversational Coherency , 1978, Cogn. Sci..

[39]  Alex Lascarides,et al.  Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment , 1993, The Language of Time - A Reader.

[40]  William C. Mann,et al.  Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization , 1988 .

[41]  D. Sperber,et al.  Relevance: Communication and Cognition , 1989 .

[42]  Jeannett Martin,et al.  English Text: System and structure , 1992 .