Adversative and Concessive Conjunctions in EFL Writing: Corpus-based Description and Rhetorical Structure Analysis

241 Pages·2021·8.525 MB·English

by  Yan Zhang

Yan Zhang
Adversative and
Concessive Conjunctions
in EFL Writing
Corpus-based Description and Rhetorical
Structure Analysis
Adversative and Concessive Conjunctions in EFL
Writing
Yan Zhang
Adversative and Concessive
Conjunctions in EFL Writing
Corpus-based Description and Rhetorical
Structure Analysis
123
Yan Zhang
EastChinaUniversity
of ScienceandTechnology
Shanghai, China
ISBN978-981-15-7836-6 ISBN978-981-15-7837-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7837-3
JointlypublishedwithShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityPress
TheprinteditionisnotforsaleintheMainlandofChina.CustomersfromtheMainlandofChinaplease
ordertheprintbookfromShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityPress.
©ShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityPress2021
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublishers,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Thepublishers,theauthors,andtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthis
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publishers nor the
authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publishers remain neutral with regard to
jurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSingaporePteLtd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
Preface
This work is a comparative study of adversative and concessive conjunctions in
English texts written by Chinese EFL learners and the native-speaker writers, who
are comparable in age and educational stage. Adversative and concessive con-
junctionsareexpressionsthatindicatesemanticrelationsofcontrastandconcession
between text spans of varying extent. According to Halliday and Matthiessen’s
(2004) systemic account of clause complexing and CONJUNCTION, adversative
andconcessiveconjunctionsfallintotwobroadsyntacticcategories,i.e.,structural
conjunctionsthatlinkorbindclauseswithinthedomainofasingleclausecomplex
(e.g., but, although, etc.) and cohesive conjunctions that typically mark relations
beyond the clause complex (e.g., however, nevertheless, etc.). In view of the
meaning relations, these conjunctions represent two different semantic categories,
i.e.,adversativetypeofextensionandconcessivetypeofenhancement.Veryoften,
anadversativeorconcessiveconjunctioncanbeusedwithagreatdealofsemantic
overlap between these two types of expansion. That is, the same instance of a
conjunctioninatextmaybeinterpretablebothadversativelyandconcessively.The
indeterminacybetweencontrastandconcessionhasbeendiscussedintheliterature
on grammaticalization. For instance, Ramat and Mauri (2008) argue that “the
diachronic paths attested for adversative and concessive connectives partially
overlapasfarasoriginallytemporalvaluesareconcerned,buttendtodivergeinthe
remaining cases” (p. 5).
Given the complex nature of adversative and concessive conjunctions at the
syntacticandsemanticlevels,theseconjunctionshavebeenasourceofdifficultyfor
EFL learners in writing. This book aims to investigate the syntactic and semantic
categories ofadversative andconcessiveconjunctionsandtoexplorethe discourse
functions of these conjunctions in writing of Chinese EFL learners and native
speakers. Drawing on Halliday and Matthiessen’s (2004) notion of grammar as a
meaning-making resource, this book is oriented toward uncovering the meaning
distinctions between a group of adversative and concessive conjunctions instanti-
ated in English texts written by Chinese EFL learners in comparison with those
written by their native-speaker counterparts.
v
vi Preface
Motivated by the concern with probability profiles and systemic potentials of
adversative and concessive conjunctions, the study combines the strengths of two
researchmethods,i.e.,thecorpus-basedapproachandtext-basedanalysisalongthe
lines suggested by Matthiessen (2006). The corpus-based approach makes it pos-
sible to analyze a group of conjunctions in large data sets in quantitative terms of
certain low-level lexico-grammatical features such as syntactic positions and
co-occurrence patterns. However, analysis involving text-level features is difficult
tohandlewiththisapproach;thesefeatureshavetobeexploredinfull-lengthtexts
manually.AsdiscussedinMatthiessen(2006),inlightoftheexpecteddifficultyof
analyzingalargevolumeofdatamanually,theusualpracticeistohaveatrade-off
between low-level analysis of large-volume data and high-level analysis of
small-volume data.
The present study draws on a learner corpus and a native-speaker corpus. The
learner data is taken from the Chinese Learner English Corpus (CLEC) (Gui and
Yang 2003) and the native-speaker data is based on essays from British Academic
Written English Corpus (BAWE-E), a corpus of proficient student writing for
degree programs at UK tertiary institutions (Nesi and Thompson 2007). The
corpus-based analysis starts with an overview of a total number of 17 adversative
andconcessiveconjunctionsacrossthetwocorpora.Comparisonsaremadeinthree
majorareas: (i)overallfrequencyanddistributionofthetypesofinter-dependency
between clauses, namely structural and cohesive; (ii) distribution of semantic cat-
egories, i.e., adversative, replacive, and concessive; and (iii) positional distribu-
tions, such as clause-initial and clause-medial positions concerning cohesive
conjunctions and initial and final dependent clauses concerning the subordinating
(hypotactic) type of structural conjunctions. Following the overview of a group of
17conjunctions,thenextstepofthecorpus-basedanalysisisdevotedtothedetailed
study offour specific conjunctions, namely but, while, and however. The in-depth
study focuses on the syntactic and co-occurrence patterns of these conjunctions to
shed light on the specific type of semantic relations they encode.
The text-level analysis is based on a full-length text taken from the Chinese
Learner English Corpus. The text-level analysis is of particular importance in
accounting for the discourse properties of adversative and concessive conjunctions
used in Chinese EFL learners’ writing. Specifically, it is concerned with searching
fordiscursiveevidenceastowhyandhowadversativeandconcessiveconjunctions
are used with other linguistic choices instantiated in English texts written by
Chinese EFL learners.
Finally,basedonthefindingsfromthecorpus-basedanalysisandthetext-based
analysis, pedagogical implications are drawn. The pedagogical implications take
into account both features of text and variables of context, intending to systemize
EFL writers’ linguistic choices of adversative and concessive conjunctions in
relation to context. The perspective to EFL writing adopted in this book is in line
with the multi-perspective second language writing theory suggested by Silva and
Matsuda(2001).SilvaandMatsuda(2001),intheintroductionofLandmarkEssays
onSecond LanguageWriting,emphasizetheneedfor atheoryofsecond language
Preface vii
writing that considers various elements of second language writing––including the
writer, the text, and the context, as well as the interaction of these elements.
Itishopedthatthepresentstudyofadversativeandconcessiveconjunctionswill
not only contribute to our understanding of these conjunctions in terms of the
meaningscreated,butalsotoourunderstandingofthesystemicpotential ofclause
complexing and CONJUNCTION as complementary grammatical resources for
realizing semantic relations, and ultimately to our knowledge of grammar as a
meaning-making resource. To the best of my knowledge, this study is among the
first to adopt a corpus-based Systemic Functional Linguistics perspective in
investigating the semantic relations encoded by adversative and concessive con-
junctions in EFL writing.
Shanghai, China Yan Zhang
June 2020
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Research Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 The Complexity of Adversative and Concessive Conjunctions. . . . 2
1.3 Aims of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5 Organization of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 Conjunctions and Logico-Semantic Relations: A Review
of Theoretical and Empirical Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1 Traditional and Systemic Functional Grammar Descriptions
of Conjunction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.1 Traditional Descriptions of Conjunctions and Linking
Adverbials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.2 The SFL-Based Approach to Clause Complexing
and CONJUNCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1.3 Comparing Different Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.2 Adversative, Replacive, and Concessive Relations: Some
Basic Distinctions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.2.1 Antithesis, Neutral Contrast, and Concession in RST. . . . . 32
2.2.2 Semantic Opposition, Denial-of-Expectation
and Correction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2.3 Comparing Different Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.3 Empirical Studies on the Use of Conjunctions and Linking
Adverbials in EFL Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3 Combining Corpus-Based Description and Text-Based Analysis. . . . 43
3.1 Data Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.1.1 Learner Corpus Used: CLEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
ix
x Contents
3.1.2 Native-Speaker Corpus Used: BAWE-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.1.3 Compatibility Between CLEC and BAWE-E. . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.2 An Account of the Combined Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4 An Overview of Adversative and Concessive Conjunctions
in CLEC and BAWE-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.1 Overall Frequency and Distributions of Interdependency Types. . . 57
4.2 Distribution of Semantic Categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.3 A Complementary View: Circumstantial Augmentation
Versus Clause Complexing and Conjunction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.4 Syntactic Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.4.1 Syntactic Distribution of Structural Conjunctions. . . . . . . . 71
4.4.2 Syntactic Distribution of Cohesive Conjunctions . . . . . . . . 76
4.5 Analyzing Multivalent Conjunctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5 Co-occurrence Patterns of but in CLEC and BAWE-E. . . . . . . . . . . 85
5.1 An Overview of the Co-occurrence Patterns of but in CLEC
and BAWE-E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5.2 Analysis of but in fact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.2.1 Sentence-Initial but Co-occurring with in fact in CLEC . . . 88
5.2.2 Sentence-Initial but Co-occurring with in fact
in BAWE-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.2.3 Co-occurrence of but in fact Within Clause Complex
in BAWE-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.2.4 Co-occurrence of but in fact Within Clause Complex
in CLEC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.3 Analysis of but I think . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.3.1 Functions of but I think in CLEC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.3.2 Functions of but I think in BAWE-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
6 The Positioning of While-Clauses and the Implications
for Understanding the Types of Logico-Semantic Relations
of While . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6.1 Sequences of While-Clause and the Main Clause
in a Hypotactic Nexus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6.1.1 Conjunctive Adjuncts + While-Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.1.2 That-While-Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
6.1.3 Section Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
6.2 Comparing Initial and Final While-Clauses for Different
Meanings in CLEC and BAWE-E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
6.2.1 Quantitative Findings of Initial and Final While-Clauses
offor Different Meanings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
6.2.2 Initial While-Clauses for the Adversative Sense. . . . . . . . . 130
6.2.3 Initial While-Clauses for Concession. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Contents xi
6.2.4 Final While-Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
6.2.5 Section Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
6.3 Further Evidence of the Distinction Between Adversative
and Concessive Sense of While . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
6.3.1 SubjectinWhile-ClausesContainingMay:AQuantitative
Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
6.3.2 Relation of Subject Selection to Modality
in While-Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
7 Analysis of however: Clause Positions and the Implications
for Logico-Semantic Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
7.1 Positional Distribution of however in CLEC and BAWE-E. . . . . . 149
7.2 Analysis of Clause-Initial however. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
7.2.1 Clause-Initial however for Adversative Extension . . . . . . . 150
7.2.2 Clause-Initial however Used for Concessive
Enhancement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.2.3 Summary of the Functions of Clause-Initial however . . . . . 155
7.3 Analysis of Clause-Medial and Paratactic however . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
7.3.1 Functions of Post-subject however . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
7.3.2 Functions of however After an Initial Circumstantial
Adjunct. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
7.3.3 The Paratactic Use of however . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
7.4 Analysis of Clause-Final however . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
8 Text-Based Analysis of Adversative and Concessive
Conjunctions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
8.1 An Overview of the Text-Based Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
8.2 Thematic Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
8.3 Instantiation Patterns of Clause Complexing and
CONJUNCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
8.4 Rhetorical Structure Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
8.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
9.1 Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
9.2 Suggestions for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Appendix A: The Error Tagging Scheme of Chinese Learner English
Corpus (Gui and Yang, 2003) .. .... .... .... ..... .... 197
Appendix B: Logico-Semantic Annotation of While-Clauses
in BAWE-E and CLEC ... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 201
References.... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 231