Thematic choice in Chinese college students' English essays

English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 50–67

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

English for Specific Purposes journal homepage: http://ees.elsevier.com/esp/default.asp

Thematic choice in Chinese college students’ English essays Jing Wei* College of International Studies, Southwest University, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online 1 October 2015

Thematic choice provides clues as to how English learners organize information and shape their essays. This research was based on a comparative study of thematic choices in Chinese and American college students’ English essays, using a Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) approach to investigate how Chinese college students make different thematic choices from native speakers, and discusses the pedagogical implications based on the differences found. Chinese college students were found to deviate from native speakers in their thematic choices: They used proportionally fewer topical Themes and significantly more interpersonal Themes in the form of modal adjuncts and mood-marking Themes. Significant differences were also found in marked Themes and textual Themes: Chinese college students used more adjuncts for manner and contingency in marked Themes; they also used more conjunctive adjuncts and fewer conjunctions in textual Themes. These findings revealed that Chinese college students lack knowledge in how Themes function in ordering information and building up the framework of a text and that therefore they should be informed of the importance of the Theme position in organizing meaning, and introduced to alternative thematic choices and strategies in manipulating information by means of activities and writing assignments. Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Thematic choice SFG Chinese college students English essays

1. Introduction The Theme is a major aspect of “how speakers construct their messages in a way which makes them fit smoothly into the unfolding language event” (Thompson, 2014, p. 145). The Theme is the element that serves as the point of departure of the message; it is what locates and orients the clause within its context (Halliday, 2014, p. 89). As a device for organizing meaning, the Theme not only operates at the local level, indicating how the writer has chosen to order information within the clause, but also helps to structure the flow of information in ways that shape interpretation of the text as a whole (Martin, 1992, 1995). While native speakers of English may have acquired the ability to produce coherent discourse by putting the right kind of information in Theme position (Hawes & Thomas, 2012, p. 175), learners of English as a foreign language are yet to learn how to use Themes appropriately in their English output, so that the reader is always aware of what the key concepts are and how they are being developed (Hyland, 2004). A comparison of the thematic choices made by Chinese college students and English native speakers will reveal how Chinese college students make thematic choices inappropriately, and will provide a good basis for effective pedagogical applications in terms of helping them make better thematic choices. The Theme is closely linked with nominalization and

* Postal address: College of International Studies, No. 2 Tiansheng Road, Beibei District, Chongqing, 400715, PR China. Tel.: þ86 18696790306. E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.09.003 0889-4906/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

J. Wei / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 50–67

51

logical connectors (discourse markers), phenomena particularly relevant to ESP (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998; Robinson, 1991); thus the study of thematic choices in college students’ English essays is “a useful entry point for an investigation of emergent disciplinarity” which may “reveal disciplinary differences encoded in the language itself” (North, 2005, p. 433). 2. Literature review English learners have a number of decisions to make in terms of thematic choices when they write in English, such as what to make more or less prominent within a text (North, 2005, p. 434) and how to relate segments to one another (Jalilifar, 2010, p. 32). While discourse is co-constructed by interlocutors in a conversation, and there are more opportunities to negotiate meaning, if the information is not shared or given between the interlocutors (Bloor & Bloor, 1992), meaning is not co-created in essays. Co-construction thus requires various grammatical strategies to effectively exploit the Theme position of a sentence and create coherent texts (Eggins, 2004; Schleppegrell, 2004). Existing literature demonstrates that English learners display highly different performances in thematic choices from native speakers of English. Learner English is found to be less dense in information than native speaker English as English learners overuse textual Themes (Belmonte & McCabe-Hidalgo, 1998; Boström Aronsson, 2005; Ebrahimi & Khedri, 2013; Hu, 2008; Jalilifar, 2010; Leedham, 2014; Rørvik & Egan, 2013; Wei, 2013a, 2013b), interpersonal Themes (Green, Christopher, & Mei, 2000; Herriman & Boström Aronsson, 2009; Lu, 2013; Wei, 2013a, 2013b), and marked Themes (Green et al., 2000; Herriman & Boström Aronsson, 2009; Lu, 2013; Wei, 2013a, 2013b). English learners’ overuse of textual Themes is mainly reflected by the tendency to place logical connectors, such as besides, furthermore, and moreover, in Theme position (Green et al., 2000, p. 111); the use of coordinating conjunctions signaling apposition or addition (Rørvik & Egan, 2013); and the excessive use of and, but, and however (Hu, 2008; Rørvik & Egan, 2013; Wei, 2014). One reason for this is the overgeneralization of the rules for conjunctions (Hu, 2008; Rørvik & Egan, 2013). For example, the use of conjunctions in connecting clauses is much emphasized in English teaching (Hu, 2008), which leads to English learners’ use of conjunctions where the logical relations are already clear (Wei, 2013b). Another reason is their intention to link each clause to the surrounding text and context by using plenty of conjunctions and conjunctive adjuncts as explicit guidance; in doing so, they try to show their ability to take an authoritative stance in their essays (Ghadessy, 1999; McCabe, 1999; Wei, 2014). Learners’ overuse of interpersonal Themes is mainly evidenced by the high frequency of expressions of modality, opinion, or subjective stance markers in Theme position in their English essays, where modal and attitudinal meaning is thematized while topical content is placed in the latter part of a clause. The studies reveal that English learners tend to express modality and evaluation explicitly in their texts, using of course, probably, maybe, perhaps, certainly, I think, etc. (Aijmer, 2002; Altenberg & Tapper, 1998; Boström Aronsson, 2005; Granger & Rayson, 2013; Granger & Tyson, 1996; Hasselgård, 2009b; Herriman & Boström Aronsson, 2009; Mellos, 2011; Narita & Sugiura, 2006; Neff et al., 2007), and express their judgment regarding the relevance of the content in the essays (Lu, 2013, p. 55). This gives their essays an overall interactive flavor, in which the writers are very much present, conveying their views to the readers (Hasselgård, 2009b). Another overuse in interpersonal Themes is the excessive use of direct questions (Herriman, 2011), which creates a dialogic method of development similar to that found in conversational language. English learners’ involved style is accounted for by L1 transfer at the interface of syntax and information structure (Bohnacker & Rosén, 2008; Cai, 1998; Hasselgård, 2009a, 2009b; Rørvik, 2012); misleading input of English in teaching by highlighting certain formal rules and semantic relationships at the expense of discourse principles (Chen, 2010; Gilquin & Paquot, 2008; Paquot, 2010); and developmental features of novice writers who are yet to acquire the rules of academic writing and knowledge of more formal alternatives to structure their discourse (Gilquin & Paquot, 2008; Paquot, Hasselgård, & Ebeling, 2013; Petch-Tyson, 2013). Marked Themes in learner English usually take the form of adverbial adjuncts expressing temporal, spatial, and circumstantial elements, or serving as topic-fronting devices (Chen, 2010; Green et al., 2000; Hu, 2008; Lu, 2013; Mellos, 2011; Qian, Andrés Ramírez, & Harman, 2007). English learners tend to place adverbial phrases of time, such as last year (Chen, 2010, p. 84), or spatial terms, such as at the school (Hu, 2008, p. 115), in Theme position. Inappropriate occupation of Theme position has a deleterious effect on information structure which is believed to have negative effects on both local and global text coherence (Green et al., 2000, p. 102) and the use of circumstantial elements as marked Themes limits English learners’ ability to use linear progression as another cohesive strategy (Qian et al., 2007, p. 108). The deviation of English learners’ thematic choices from those made by native speakers gives rise to propositions that English learners should be trained in how to select Themes when writing essays in English. For example, Ventola (1994) advocates that courses for academic essays in a foreign language should develop learners’ consciousness and linguistic skills in organizing information in texts in a way which is referentially and thematically cohesive. Alonso and McCabe (2003) point out that English learners’ attention should be directed to the progression of information in texts as they often write essays consisting of sentences which do not seem to form part of a cohesive text. Christie and Dreyfus (2007) advocate a genre-based approach to teaching deconstructing genre models for Theme. Bohnacker (2010) points out that “discoursedriven word order patterns are . largely ignored in descriptive grammars, teacher training and language teaching materials” (p. 133) while learners are not likely to monitor for differences concerning the interaction of information structure and word order, as they are probably not even aware that their native language differs from the target language in this regard. Hawes and Thomas (2012) propose that “there is a need for coaching in thematisation . teaching at least rudimentary thematisation

52

J. Wei / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 50–67

theory and giving students practice with an assortment of thematic options . based on our students’ apparent inadequate familiarity with English information structure” (p. 182). However, there have been very few investigations regarding how teachers could draw on the literature about Theme (Wei, 2014, p. 75), and very few studies that have developed and studied teaching materials informed by Theme (Bohnacker, 2010, p. 133). Studies of learner English can provide a basis for pedagogical applications by describing one specific interlanguage and/or designing tailor-made pedagogical tools which will benefit similar types of learners (Granger, 2009, p. 20) and therefore the present research, by comparing thematic choices in Chinese and American college students’ English essays, aims to investigate how Chinese college students make thematic choices differently from native speakers and to discuss the pedagogical implications of these differences. It specifically intends to answer the following two questions: 1) 2)

What are the differences between the thematic choices made by Chinese college students and by English native speakers? In which aspects of thematic choice do Chinese college students need instruction based on the differences found in this study?

3. Research design 3.1. Participants and the task Participants in this study consisted of two groups of students: 30 Chinese college students and 30 American college students. The Chinese college students were English majors in their sophomore year attending a Comprehensive English course taught by the researcher in the College of International Studies at Southwest University, Chongqing, China. English is a compulsory subject in secondary schools in China, so the Chinese participants had at least six years of formal English education before they started to learn English as their major. The American college students were international students taking an eight-week intensive Chinese course, also taught by the researcher, at the same university. Their native language was English. Most of them majored in social sciences, such as education or history, and a few of them majored in sciences, such as biology. All the participants were asked to write an essay on one of the following two topics taken from Longman iBT TOEFL Essays (Lee, 2005, pp. 130, 138) and were given 30 min to do so. The assigning of the topics was random. Topic 1: Trees are important to individuals, to countries and cultures. Explain what tree or trees are important to you and/or your culture. Use specific reasons and details to support your point of view. Topic 2: Which room in the house would your family consider the most important? Describe the room and explain why it is more important than any other room. Use specific reasons and details.

3.2. The data The data in this research comprised 60 essays from two categories, with 30 essays from each one: the Chinese college students, labeled as CCS, and the native speakers of English, labeled as NS. The 60 essays, collected in June 2012, totaled 12,470 words. All the essays were used with the permission of the participants concerned. Table 1 provides information with regard to the total number of words written by the CCS and the NS, the average number of words per essay, total number of T-units (which was used as the unit of analysis and is explained in detail in Section 3.3.2.), and the average number of words per T-unit in the two essay categories. 3.3. Analytical framework A Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) analytical framework was adopted for the analysis of the essays of both Chinese college students and native speakers. The essays of the Chinese college students are referred to as CCS plus a number between 1 and 30 to denote the identity of the student writer and the essays of the English native speakers are similarly referred to as NS plus a number. 3.3.1. Division of Theme and Rheme The division of Theme and Rheme was drawn, following Halliday (2014, p. 91), after the first experiential constituent, that is, the constituent which represents a participant, circumstance, or process, which Halliday labels as the topical Theme. The Theme would also include any element preceding the topical Theme or the first experiential constituent. It should be noted, however, that an extended definition of Theme which suggests that the subject be regarded as thematic has been proposed

Table 1 Overview of the data. Essays category

Total number of words

Average number of words per essay

Total number of T-units

Average number of words per T-unit

CCS NS

6458 6012

215.27 200.40

478 454

13.51 13.24

J. Wei / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 50–67

In every home,

a kitchen sits in the middle of it and unites a family

Theme

Rheme

53

(NS-01) Figure 1. Division of Theme and Rheme.

(e.g., Berry, 1995; Davies, 1994; Fawcett, 2008; Forey, 2002; Martin & Rose, 2003; North, 2005; Rose, 2001). Halliday’s division of Theme and Rheme was adopted in the present research because it reflects better the distinction between unmarked (subject) Themes associated with topic continuity, and marked (circumstantial) Themes associated with discontinuity (Davies, 1997; Fries, 1995; Gosden, 1992, 1993), and therefore provides a more sophisticated understanding of the Theme as a texturing resource (Thompson & Thompson, 2009). Thus, in the clause, In every home, a kitchen sits in the middle of it and unites a family (NS-01), the adverbial In every home was classified as the Theme and a kitchen sits in the middle of it and unites a family as the Rheme, as shown in Figure 1. 3.3.2. Unit of analysis The T-unit was used as the basic unit of analysis in this research. A T-unit is a clause complex which contains one main independent clause together with all the hypotactic clauses that are dependent on it (Fries, 1995, p. 318). The T-unit was used in the present research because “analyzing Theme at the level of T-unit rather than the individual clause . can . be justified on the grounds that the thematic structure of a dependent clause is often constrained by the independent clause” (Fries & Francis, 1992, p. 6). 3.3.3. Identification of Themes Three types of Themes in terms of textual metafunction and two types of Themes in terms of thematic markedness were distinguished, following SFG (Halliday, 2014). Tables 2 and 3 provide details of the Theme types and their sub-types analyzed in this research. The element that is typically chosen as topical Theme in an English clause depends on the choice of mood (Halliday, 2014, p. 97). All free major clauses are either indicative or imperative in mood; if indicative, they are either declarative or interrogative; if interrogative, they are either “yes/no” interrogative or “WH”-interrogative. A. Topical Themes (a) Topical Theme in declarative clauses The typical topical Theme in a declarative clause is conflated with the subject. For example, We is both subject and Theme in, We lock our keys inside the car. The mapping of Theme on to subject is the unmarked Theme of a declarative clause. A Theme that is something other than the subject in a declarative clause is a marked Theme. The most usual form of a marked Theme is an adverbial group, such as today, suddenly, somewhat distractingly, or a prepositional phrase, such as at night, in the corner, without any warning, functioning as an adjunct in the clause.

Table 2 Theme types in terms of textual metafunction. Type

Sub-type

Topical Theme Textual Theme

/ Continuative Conjunction Conjunctive adjunct Vocative Modal adjunct Mood-marking

Interpersonal Theme

Table 3 Topical Themes in terms of thematic markedness. Type

Sub-type

Topical Theme

Unmarked Theme Marked Theme

54

J. Wei / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 50–67

(b) Topical Theme in interrogative clauses In a yes/no interrogative, which is a question about polarity, the element that functions as Theme is the element that embodies the expression of polarity, namely the finite verbal operator that expresses positive or negative meanings: is, isn’t; do, don’t; can, can’t; and so on. In a WH-interrogative, which is a search for a missing piece of information, the element that functions as Theme is the element that requires this information, namely the WH-element: who, what, when, how, and so on. (c) Topical Theme in imperative clauses The basic message of an imperative clause is either “I want you to do something” or “I want us to do something”. With the first type, the most typical Theme is the verb. For example, in Keep quiet, the verb Keep is the unmarked Theme. The second type usually begins with let’s, which is the unmarked choice of Theme. In negative imperatives, such as Don’t argue with me the unmarked Theme is don’t plus the verb. (d) Topical Theme in clause complexes What has been discussed so far is exclusive to Themes in single clauses. The Theme in a clause complex, which consists of more than one clause, is also discussed in the literature on SFG (for example, Halliday, 2014; Thompson, 2014). Thompson (2014) points out that “when a dependent clause in a clause complex precedes the clause on which it depends, there appear to be good practical reasons for analyzing the dependent clause as the Theme for the whole clause complex” (p. 159). According to Halliday (2014), the thematic principle also lies behind the organization in a clause complex. He pointed out that, in a clause complex, there will be two thematic domains d that of the clause complex and that of the clause, as shown in Figure 2. The Theme in version (2) is the clause. Clauses are thematized to show contingency, such as condition and concession, or other purposes, such as cause and manner (McCabe, 1999, p. 148). Regarding the order of clauses in a clause complex, Halliday argues (2014) that the default order of clauses is independent clause followed by dependent clause, while a dependent clause in initial position constitutes a marked choice of Theme (pp. 549-551). In line with this, the clausal Theme in a clause complex is unmarked if it serves as the subject; it is a marked Theme if it is not mapped onto the subject of the clause. B. Textual Themes Topical Themes may be preceded by elements that are textual and/or interpersonal in function, in which case these are also part of the Theme. The textual Theme is any combination of continuatives, structurals, and conjunctives (Halliday, 2014, pp. 107-108). A continuative is one of a small set of discourse signalers, such as yes, no, well, oh, or now, which signal that a new move is beginning; it can also be a response in dialogue, or a move to the next point if the same speaker is continuing. A structural Theme is any of the obligatorily thematic elements, including coordinating (e.g., and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet, etc.) and subordinating conjunctions (e.g., if, when, because, since, even though, etc.). Coordinating conjunctions act as textual Themes (in T-units); but subordinating conjunctions only act as structural Themes in dependent clauses, so are not in fact relevant to the present study. A conjunctive Theme is one of the conjunctive adjuncts listed in Table 4 wherever such an adjunct occurs preceding the topical Theme. Conjunctions are different from conjunctive adjuncts (see Table 4) as they not only establish semantic relationships between meanings, but also “set up a grammatical (systemic-structural) relationship with another clause” (Halliday, 2014, p. 110). C. Interpersonal Themes The interpersonal Theme is any combination of vocatives, modals, and mood-markings (Halliday, 2014, pp. 110-111). A vocative is any item, typically (but not necessarily) a personal name, used to address the listener/reader; it may come more or less anywhere in the clause, and is thematic if preceding the topical Theme. A modal Theme is any of the modal adjuncts listed in Table 5 that has the meaning of probability, usuality, typicality, obviousness, opinion, admission, persuasion, entreaty, presumption, desirability, reservation, validation, evaluation, or prediction whenever it occurs preceding the topical Theme. A mood-marking Theme is a finite verbal operator, if preceding the topical Theme, as Are in Are they still together?; or a WH-

When James Joyce

wrote this in “Ulysses”,

he

meant the first part of his comment to be provocative.

(1)

Theme

Rheme

Theme

Rheme

(2)

Theme

Rheme Figure 2. Theme in clause complex.

J. Wei / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 50–67

55

Table 4 Conjunctive adjuncts. Type

Sub-type

Meaning

Example

Elaboration

appositive corrective dismissive summative verificative additive adversative variative temporal comparative causal conditional concessive respective

“i.e., e.g.” “rather” “in any case” “in short” “actually” “and” “but” “instead” “then” “likewise” “so” “(if.) then” “yet” “as to that”

that is, in other words, for instance or rather, at least, to be precise in any case, anyway, leaving that aside briefly, to sum up, in conclusion actually, in fact, as a matter of fact also, moreover, in addition, besides on the other hand, however, conversely instead, alternatively meanwhile, before that, next, soon, finally likewise, in the same way therefore, for this reason, as a result in that case, under the circumstances, otherwise nevertheless, despite that in this respect, as far as that’s concerned

Extension

Enhancement

(based on Halliday, 2014, pp. 471-487).

Table 5 Modal adjuncts.

I

II

Type

Meaning

Example

probability usuality typicality obviousness opinion admission persuasion entreaty presumption desirability reservation validation evaluation prediction

“how likely?” “how often?” “how typical?” “how obvious?” “I think” “I admit” “I assure you” “I request you” “I presume” “how desirable?” “how reliable?” “how valid?” “how sensible?” “how expected?”

probably, possibly, certainly, perhaps, maybe usually, sometimes, always, (n)ever, often, seldom occasionally, generally, regularly, for the most part of course, surely, obviously, clearly in my opinion, personally, to my mind frankly, to be honest, to tell you the truth honestly, really, believe me, seriously please, kindly evidently, apparently, no doubt, presumably (un)fortunately, to my delight/distress, regrettably, hopefully at first, tentatively, provisionally, looking back on it broadly speaking, in general, on the whole, strictly speaking, in principle (un)wisely, understandably, mistakenly, foolishly to my surprise, surprisingly, as expected, by chance

(Halliday, 2014, p. 109).

interrogative (or imperative let’s) when not preceded by another experiential element (i.e., when functioning simultaneously as topical Theme), as Where in Where did you get that?, or Let’s in Let’s have a cup of coffee. In this study, the concept of grammatical metaphor (Halliday, 1994, 2004, 2014) was adopted so that clauses which express opinions, such as I think, I believe, and as far as I am concerned, were categorized as interpersonal Themes. A grammatical metaphor can be “of an experiential kind, with the metaphorical process taking place in the ideational process, or the interpersonal process” (Halliday, 1994, p. 58). For example, I don’t believe, in the clause complex, I don’t believe that pudding will ever be cooked, is a grammatical metaphor for “in my opinion, . not likely.”. The metaphorical construction can be seen from the tagged form of this sentence: I don’t believe that pudding will ever be cooked, will it?. The expression, I don’t believe, is functioning as an interpersonal (modal) Theme. Other examples are: I dare say you’ll see her soon, I think I’ll go and meet her, Do you suppose that they could get it clear?, where similarly the tags would be won’t you?, shall I?, and could they?. The analysis is given in Figure 3: the literal, or congruent, interpretation is shown in version (1), the metaphorical in version (2). In the present research, version (2) – the metaphorical interpretation – was adopted when analyzing the data. D. Marked Themes The mapping of Theme onto subject is considered as the unmarked Theme of a declarative clause, which is normally the element chosen as the Theme unless there is good reason for choosing something else (Halliday, 2014, p. 98). For example, in I

don’t believe

that pudding

ever will be cooked

(1)

Theme

Rheme

Theme

Rheme

(2)

interpersonal (modal) Theme

topical Rheme

Figure 3. Interpersonal Theme resulting from grammatical metaphor. (Halliday, 2014, p. 687).

56

J. Wei / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 50–67

We spent Christmas happily together, We is the subject as well as the Theme, therefore unmarked, while in Happily together we spent the Christmas, Happily together is an adverbial instead of the subject, therefore marked Theme. In accordance with thematic markedness, the topical Themes can be categorized into marked and unmarked Themes. Halliday (2014, pp. 98-100) posits a cline of markedness, capturing the likelihood of any of these elements occurring in initial position in the clause. The most common form of marked Theme is an adverbial group or prepositional phrase functioning as circumstantial adjunct, like Happily together in Happily together we spent the Christmas, or In the corner in In the corner there is a chair. The least likely, and thus the most marked, is a complement, which is a nominal group that could have been chosen as the subject but was not, like You in You I blame for this. The identification of marked or unmarked Theme is determined by the mood of the clause, whether the clause is declarative, interrogative, or imperative. The unmarked Theme is realized by the subject in a declarative clause (Figure 4), the operator in a polar interrogative clause (Figure 5), the WH-element in a WH-interrogative clause (Figure 6), or the overt subject or verb if starting with these in an imperative clause (Figure 7). Other elements in the Theme position would be identified as marked Themes (see Figures 8–11).

We

spent the Christmas happily together.

Theme

Rheme

Figure 4. Unmarked Theme in a declarative clause.

Is

there a chair in the corner?

Theme

Rheme

Figure 5. Unmarked Theme in a polar interrogative clause.

What

did they have in common except for music?

Theme

Rheme

Figure 6. Unmarked Theme in a WH-interrogative clause.

Let’s

have a cup of coffee.

Theme

Rheme

Figure 7. Unmarked Theme in an imperative clause.

Happily together

we spent the Christmas.

Theme

Rheme

Figure 8. Marked Theme in a declarative clause.

In the corner

is there a chair?

Theme

Rheme

Figure 9. Marked Theme in a polar interrogative clause.

Except for music,

what did they have in common?

Theme

Rheme

Figure 10. Marked Theme in a WH-interrogative clause.

Off

you go.

Theme

Rheme

Figure 11. Marked Theme in an imperative clause.

J. Wei / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 50–67

57

Table 6 Marked Themes. Type

Sub-type

Spatial Temporal Manner

/ / Means Quality Comparison Degree Reason Purpose Behalf Condition Concession Default

Cause

Contingency

Marked Themes can be further analyzed as five sub-types: (i) spatial, (ii) temporal, (iii) manner, (iv) cause, and (v) contingency (Halliday, 2014, pp. 314-324), the details of which are provided in Table 6. 3.4. Procedures The following procedure was used in the analysis of the English essays: (1) locating and numbering each T-unit; (2) identifying the Theme/Rheme division in each T-unit with a slash “/”; (3) identifying and recording the Theme type in each T-unit in line with Section 3.3.3, that is, whether the topical Theme is marked and whether there are textual and/or interpersonal Themes, as shown in essay extract (1); (4) counting the raw numbers of different types of Themes, and calculating the proportion of these Themes; and (5) conducting descriptive analyses and independent t-tests analyses.

(1) CCS-0211 T-unit

Theme Type

Theme markedness

In my home, /there are two bedrooms, one living room, one dining room, one kitchen and one bathroom. Among all the rooms, /the most important room, I think, may be my bedroom. My bedroom/is the second largest room in our house and it /’s well-equipped with a big bed, two wardrobes, an air-condition, a desk and a big bookshelf. .

Topical Topical Topical Textual-and Topical

spatial manner

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used for procedures (4) and (5). A p value  0.05 was considered statistically significant for the independent t-tests. 4. Themes in Chinese college student English essays The first question explored in this study was how Chinese college students selected Themes differently from English native speakers. With this aim in mind, raw numbers of different types of Themes were counted, the proportion of different Themes were calculated and independent t-tests were performed to decide if there were statistically significant differences. 4.1. Topical, textual, and interpersonal themes Table 7 compares the raw numbers and proportion of topical, textual, and interpersonal Themes in CCS essays and NS essays. The proportion of different types of Themes was calculated by dividing the number of each type of Theme by the total number of all three types of Themes instead of the total number of T-units.2 As shown in Table 7, Chinese college students deviated from native speakers in their use of Themes. They used proportionally fewer topical Themes (72.75% vs. 78.28%) and more interpersonal Themes (8.22% vs. 3.45%) than native speakers. There is only a slight difference in the use of textual Themes though: 19.03% for the CCS group, and 18.27% for native speakers.

1 There were some language problems concerning grammar or diction in CCS essays; these problems were not relevant to the analysis and were not corrected in the extracts presented in the paper. 2 All T-units presumably have a topical Theme (if they are grammatical), and so dividing by the total number of T-units was felt to be an inappropriate measure.

58

J. Wei / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 50–67 Table 7 Distribution of Themes in CCS and NS Essays. Theme type

CCS

Topical Textual Interpersonal Total

478 125 54 657

NS 72.75% 19.03% 8.22% 100.00%

454 106 20 580

78.28% 18.27% 3.45% 100.00%

The major findings in this research confirm what has been found in previous studies on Themes in learner English. For example, Ventola (1994), Green et al. (2000), Hu (2008), Chen (2010), Ebrahimi and Ebrahimi (2012b), Lu (2013), and Wei (2013b) found that English learners used proportionally fewer topical Themes and more interpersonal Themes than native speakers. Underuse of topical Themes could render English learners’ essays less informative while overuse of interpersonal Themes may make their essays more colloquial. The findings about textual Themes is consistent with some studies but different from others. For example, Chen (2010) and Wei (2013b) found that Chinese college students used the same proportion of textual Themes in their English output as English native speakers, but Ventola (1994), Green et al. (2000), Hu (2008), Ebrahimi and Ebrahimi (2012b), and Lu (2013) found that English learners overused textual Themes. Chinese college students used proportionally fewer topical Themes because they used more interpersonal and textual Themes which native speakers tended to use less so that the proportion of topical Themes in NS essays was higher. These differences are exemplified in essay extracts (2) and (3). Of the ten T-units in each essay extract, there are three interpersonal Themes (more or less/Why/How) and two textual Themes (and/above all) in CCS-012’s essay while there are no interpersonal Themes and two textual Themes (but/for example) in NS-018’s essay.

(2) CCS-012 T-unit

Theme types

More or less, you/will know many kinds of trees. You/may see it grow, and you/may find its beauty. Above all, you/may be attracted most by a unique tree. As for me, I/love longan most. It /’s the most impressive tree in my life, although it only had the low shoot and unstrong twigs. It/supported all my childhood. Why/I love it most? How/could I not love it for it gave me so much happiness and interest. I/still remember the entertainment my fellow and I found with the longan.

interpersonal/typicality textual/and textual/adjuncts/summative

interpersonal/mood-marking Interpersonal/mood-marking

(3) NS-018 T-unit On my college campus in America/we have tons of trees. Our school, the University of Alabama, /is known for how beautiful the campus is. The trees/play a very big role in this and we take pride in that. The trees/are important to me and American culture for the same reasons. We/love the beauty of nature. My home state, Alabama, /has among the most trees of any state in the nation. For me, /trees are not only beautiful, but they/make me feel at home. For example, all of the trees/here at Southwest University remind me of the University of Alabama. There/are tons of large green trees just like in Alabama,

Theme types

textual/but textual/adjunct/appositive

The t-tests determined whether there were statistically significant differences in the distribution of topical, textual, and interpersonal Themes in CCS essays and NS essays (Table 8). Significant differences were found in interpersonal Themes: t (58) ¼ 3.46, p ¼ .00. The magnitude of the differences in the means was very large (eta squared ¼ .17).3 4.2. Topical Themes: marked and unmarked themes Table 9 compares the raw numbers and proportion of marked and unmarked Themes in CCS and NS essays. The proportion of marked and unmarked Themes was calculated by dividing the number of marked and unmarked Themes by the total

3

The guidelines (Cohen, 1988, as cited in Pallant, 2010) for interpreting eta squared are: .01 ¼ small effect, .06 ¼ moderate effect, .14 ¼ large effect.

J. Wei / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 50–67

59

Table 8 Mean scores and t-test results for Themes in CCS and NS essays.

Topical Textual Interpersonal

Type

N

Mean

SD

CCS NS CCS NS CCS NS

30 30 30 30 30 30

15.93 15.13 4.17 3.53 1.80 .67

4.47 5.25 2.81 2.05 1.57 .61

t

df

Sig

.64

58

.26

.99

58

.16

3.46

58

.00

Table 9 Distribution of Theme markedness in CCS and NS essays. CCS Marked Unmarked T-units

NS

96 382 478

20.08% 79.92% 100.00%

69 385 454

15.20% 84.80% 100.00%

Table 10 Mean scores and t-test results for marked and unmarked Themes in CCS and NS essays.

Marked Unmarked

Type

N

Mean

SD

t

df

Sig

CCS NS CCS NS

30 30 30 30

3.20 2.30 12.73 12.83

1.55 1.76 4.35 4.89

1.95

58 58 58 58

.03

.08

.47

number of T-units. A salient difference was found in the distribution of marked and unmarked Themes: Unmarked topical Themes were more predominant in NS essays than in CCS essays (84.80% vs. 79.92%). Chinese English learners used more marked Themes than native speakers (20.08% vs. 15.20%). T-tests determined whether the use of marked Themes was significantly different between the two groups. As shown in Table 10, the CCS group (M ¼ 3.20, SD ¼ 1.55) used more marked Themes than the NS group (M ¼ 2.30, SD ¼ 1.76) and this difference was confirmed to be statistically significant by the t-test: t (58) ¼ 1.95, p ¼ .03. The magnitude of the differences in the means was moderate (eta squared ¼ .06). This finding is consistent with previous studies (Chen, 2010; Green et al., 2000; Qian et al., 2007). Chinese English learners may have a greater tendency to use marked Themes, particularly fronted adjuncts, due to the influence of L2 universals and Chinese-related factors (Qian et al., 2007). Marked Themes were further analyzed to see what kind of adjuncts were more likely to be fronted as marked Themes than other information in a clause. Table 11 shows the types of marked Themes used in CCS and NS essays. As can be seen in Table 11, temporal adjuncts and spatial adjuncts dominated in both CCS essays and NS essays, with native speakers using proportionally more temporal and spatial adjuncts in their essays than Chinese college students. This specific finding is not consistent with Chen (2010) who found that Chinese college students used a lot more temporal adjuncts and spatial adjuncts than native speakers. However, native speakers used fewer other elements, that is, manner, cause, and contingency. Of these three, it was in the use of contingency adjuncts where Chinese college students differed most from native speakers, as shown in essay extracts (4) and (5). In essay extract (4), CCS-026 used five marked Themes of the following types: one spatial (In our house), one temporal (Every time when my relatives come to visit us), one manner (As a person who lives in the countryside) and two contingency (Although it is not the best room in comparison with other rooms in my family/Even though it is not very beautiful in other persons eyes), while in essay extract (5), NS-010 used three marked Themes of the following types: two temporal (When my family cooks a meal/Whenever we are welcoming someone into our home) and one spatial (In the kitchen).

Table 11 Marked Themes in CCS and NS essays. CCS Temporal Spatial Manner Cause Contingency Total

35 21 12 8 20 96

NS 36.46% 21.88% 12.50% 8.33% 20.83% 100.00%

33 22 0 7 7 69

47.83% 31.89% 0.00% 10.14% 10.14% 100.00%

60

J. Wei / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 50–67

(4) CCS-026 T-unit

Thematic markedness

As a person who lives in the countryside, /I live in a traditional house which is indeed not very commodious. In our house, /it is the living room that our family consider the most important, compared with other rooms. I’/ d like to use the word “lovely” to describe our living room. Although it is not the best room in comparison with other rooms in my family, /it is the room which is frequently giving me an atmosphere of love and warmth. I have to say there/are not much furniture in our living room, except a TV, a big table. Even though it is not very beautiful in other persons eyes, /my family consider it the most important. As far as I am concerned, our living room/is the most appropriate place which we can use to welcome our guests. Every time when my relativities come to visit us, /we will sit in the big table together, talking happily.

manner spatial contingency

contingency temporal

(5) NS-010 T-unit

Thematic markedness

A home cooked meal/is very important in America. When my family cooks a meal, /all of the family members help. This/is a special time for my family to laugh and talk about what is happening in our lives. The kitchen/may not be the largest room in the house, but it/is where most interactions occur. The door/through which we leave and enter the house is connected to the kitchen. Whenever we are welcoming someone into our home, /it takes place in the kitchen. In the kitchen, /there is a large open space where all of the younger children play together.

temporal

temporal spatial

T-tests determined whether the distribution of temporal, spatial, manner, cause, and contingency adjuncts were significantly different between the CCS and NS groups. The results are presented in Table 12. The t-test revealed no statistically significant difference between the groups in the distribution of temporal, spatial, and cause adjuncts while significant differences were found in the manner [t (58) ¼ 3.25, p ¼ .00] and contingency [t (58) ¼ 2.13, p ¼ .02] types. The magnitude of the differences in the means was very large for the manner type (eta squared ¼ .15), and moderate for the contingency type (eta squared ¼ .07). 4.3. Textual themes: continuatives, conjunctions, and conjunctive adjuncts Table 13 compares continuatives, conjunctions, and conjunctive adjuncts in CCS and NS essays. In fact, only a single case of continuatives was found in the NS essays, while no occurrences were found in the CCS essays. This is probably due to the fact that students were working on a writing task. Continuatives, such as yes, no, well, oh, and now, are discourse signalers, which indicate that a new move is beginning in oral discourse (Halliday, 2014, p. 107). However, a salient difference was found in conjunctions and conjunctive adjuncts: Chinese college students used fewer conjunctions Table 12 Mean scores and t-test results for temporal, spatial, manner, cause, and contingency adjuncts in CCS and NS essays.

Temporal Spatial Manner Cause Contingency

Type

N

Mean

SD

CCS NS CCS NS CCS NS CCS NS CCS NS

30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

1.17 1.10 .70 .73 .40 .00 .27 .23 .67 .23

1.23 1.27 .84 .69 .67 .00 .52 .43 .96 .57

t .21 .17 3.25 .27 2.13

Table 13 Continuatives, conjunctions, and conjunctive adjuncts in CCS and NS essays. CCS Continuatives Conjunctions Conjunctive adjuncts Total

0 51 74 125

NS 40.80% 59.20% 100.00%

1 89 16 106

0.94% 83.96% 15.10% 100.00%

df

Sig

58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58

.42 .43 .00 .39 .02

J. Wei / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 50–67

61

Table 14 Mean scores and t-test results for continuatives, conjunctions, and conjunctive adjuncts in CCS and NS essays.

Continuatives Conjunctions Conjunctive adjuncts

Type

N

Mean

SD

t

df

Sig

CCS NS CCS NS CCS NS

30 30 30 30 30 30

.00 .03 1.70 2.97 2.47 .53

.00 .18 1.49 2.06 1.83 .94

1.00

58 58 58 58 58 58

.16

2.73 5.14

.00 .00

Table 15 Conjunctive adjuncts in CCS essays and NS essays. CCS Temporal Additive Adversative Other Total

26 23 9 16 74

NS 35.14% 31.08% 12.16% 21.62% 100.00%

4 6 3 3 16

25.00% 37.50% 18.75% 18.75% 100.00%

than native speakers (40.80% vs. 83.96%); more than half of the textual Themes in CCS essays were conjunctive adjuncts (59.20%) as against only 15.10% in the NS essays. This could possibly be a result of a lack of direct instruction on the importance of conjunctions in creating cohesive essays (Ebrahimi & Ebrahimi, 2012a). Significant differences were found between the CCS and NS groups with regard to both conjunctions [t (58) ¼ 2.73, p ¼ .00] and conjunctive adjuncts [t (58) ¼ 5.14, p ¼ .00] in the t-tests, as shown in Table 14. The magnitude of the differences in the means was very large for both conjunctions (eta squared ¼ .11) and conjunctive adjuncts (eta squared ¼ .31). Chinese college students used more conjunctive adjuncts than native speakers mainly because they used a lot of conjunctive adjuncts of the temporal, additive, and adversative types, as can be seen in Table 15.4 Conjunctive adjuncts are not necessarily thematic and they may occur elsewhere in the clause (Halliday, 2004, p. 132), which Chinese English learners do not seem to be aware of. In essay extract (6), CCS-027 used four textual adjuncts of the additive (Also/Also), adversative (On the other hand), and summative (Above all) types, while in essay extract (7), NS-006 used three textual Themes, all of which were conjunctions.

(6) CCS-027 T-unit The room/provide a warm and comfortable atmosphere for us. It/makes my family closer. Also, living room/is larger than other houses, We/can even cook in it in winter. It /’s convenient for us to treat our guests. On the other hand, others/are not as important as living room. They/are separated or private. To some extent, we/cannot share with others, such as bed room. Also they/are smaller than living room. Above all, living room/plays a great part in our family life,

Theme type

textual/adjunct/additive

textual/adjunct/adversative

textual/adjunct/additive textual/adjunct/summative

(7) NS-006 T-unit

Theme type

There/is no room in my house more important than the kitchen. The kitchen/is a place my family cherishes the most because of the time we spend together. In our kitchen, /we eat meals together and talk about important things in life with others so we/can encourage and build each other up. Textual/conjunction/so It/is not very big so we/are often close when we speak to each other, just like in our relationship with each other. Textual/conjunction/so There/is also a TV in our kitchen so we/can watch sports, news, or shows together if we like to. Textual/conjunction/so The kitchen/is also important because it is where other families come when they are invited over for dinner. It/is often in the kitchen when you get to know other people and their family the most and have fun fellowship with each other.

4 Conjunctive adjuncts other than the temporal, additive, or adversative types were counted and calculated as a single group because of their scarcity. Similar treatment was applied to conjunctions other than and, but, and so.

62

J. Wei / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 50–67

Table 16 Mean scores and t-test results for temporal, additive, adversative, and other elements in CCS and NS essays.

Temporal Additive Adversative Other

Type

N

Mean

SD

t

df

Sig

CCS NS CCS NS CCS NS CCS NS

30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

.87 .13 .77 .20 .30 .10 .53 .10

1.17 .43 1.10 .55 .53 .31 .73 .31

3.23

58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58

.00

2.52 1.78 2.99

.01 .04 .00

Table 17 Conjunctions in CCS and NS essays. CCS And So But Total

NS

22 15 14 51

43.14% 29.41% 27.45% 100.00%

40 30 19 89

44.95% 33.70% 21.35% 100%

Table 18 Mean scores and t-test results for and, so, and but in CCS and NS essays.

And So But

Type

N

Mean

SD

t

df

Sig

CCS NS CCS NS CCS NS

30 30 30 30 30 30

.73 1.33 .50 1.00 .47 .63

1.05 1.35 .68 1.39 .57 .72

1.93

58 58 58 58 58 58

.03

1.77 .99

.04 .16

T-tests revealed statistically significant differences between the two groups in the distribution of all four aspects: temporal [t (58) ¼ 3.23, p ¼ .00], additive [t (58) ¼ 2.52, p ¼ .01], adversative [t (58) ¼ 1.78, p ¼ .04], and other [t (58) ¼ 2.99, p ¼ .00] types, as shown in Table 16. The magnitude of the differences in the means was very large for the temporal (eta squared ¼ .15), additive (eta squared ¼ .10), and other types (eta squared ¼ .13), and moderate for the adversative type (eta squared ¼ .05). Table 17 compares conjunctions used in CCS and NS essays. Only paratactic conjunctions were found in all three groups of essays, and this is because the T-unit was used as the unit of analysis in this research: if the clauses containing hypotactic conjunctions occurred in the beginning of the T-unit, they were categorized as marked Themes; and if they appeared in the latter half of the T-unit, they were categorized as part of the Rheme. Proportionally, the CCS group used less and (43.14% vs. 44.95%), less so (29.41% vs. 33.70%), and more but (27.45% vs. 21.35%) than the NS group. Neither group used conjunctions other than and, so, and but in the essays collected for this research. Table 18 presents mean scores and t-test results for and, so, and but conjunctions used in the CCS and NS essays. Statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in their use of and [t (58) ¼ 1.93, p ¼ .03] and so [t (58) ¼ 1.77, p ¼ .04]: the CCS group (M ¼ .73, SD ¼ 1.05) used less and than the NS group (M ¼ 1.33, SD ¼ 1.35); they (M ¼ .50, SD ¼ .68) also used less so than the NS group (M ¼ 1.00, SD ¼ 1.39). The magnitude of the differences in the means was moderate for both and (eta squared ¼ .06) and so (eta squared ¼ .05). 4.4. Interpersonal Themes Table 19 provides findings about interpersonal Themes in CCS and NS essays. Chinese college students used more interpersonal Themes, thus rendering their essays more colloquial. This is mainly due to the fact that they used more modal adjuncts, especially opinion (17) and persuasion (10), and more mood-marking Themes (7). In comparison, native speakers used only six modal adjuncts expressing opinion, none for persuasion or mood-marking. Neither Chinese college students nor native speakers used any vocative Themes in their essays. As shown in essay extract (8), CCS-005 used four interpersonal Themes, all of which were modal adjuncts signaling persuasion (As we all known), validation (To some extent), opinion (Personally) and obviousness (Of course), while NS-025 used no interpersonal Themes at all, as illustrated in essay extract (9).

J. Wei / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 50–67

63

Table 19 Interpersonal Themes in CCS and NS essays. CCS Modal Adjunct

probability usuality typicality obviousness opinion admission persuasion entreaty presumption desirability reservation validation evaluation prediction

Vocative Mood-marking Theme Total

NS

1 4 2 3 17 2 10 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 0

87.04%

100.00%

0.00%

2 8 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

7 54

12.96% 100.00%

0 20

0.00% 100.00%

0.00%

(8) CCS-005 T-unit

Interpersonal Theme

As we all known, trees/are important for human. They/offer fresh air to us all the time. I/live in a beautiful city which is covered with various trees especially for camphor trees. I think camphor trees/are important to me and my hometown. To some extent, camphor trees/is to the city what water to fish. They/make my hometown green growing in and around the city. They/absorb larger amount of CO2 from the air and let the O2 out to make sure people can breathe fresh air every day. Of course, camphor trees/are also a way of making a living. Personally, I/really like camphor trees, it is of great important for me.

Adjunct/persuasion

Adjunct/validation

Adjunct/obviousness Adjunct/opinion

(9) NS-025 T-unit

Interpersonal Theme

In America, /I am from the state of Georgia. Our state tree/is the Dogwood and it/is very important to me and my home. The Dogwood/blossoms in light spring rain and produces a beautiful white flowered tree with a distinct smell for the season. It/reminds me of great memories and fun times in the season of spring. In my heart, /Dogwood trees always hold a special spot because they are very specific to our state of Georgia. There/are times when the sight of the tree takes me back to a fond memory of my childhood. Dogwoods/are found most everywhere in Georgia and they/make the land look more beautiful than ever.

T-tests were also run and significant differences were found between the CCS and NS groups in the distribution of both modal adjuncts [t (58) ¼ 2.97, p ¼ .00] and mood-marking Themes [t (58) ¼ 2.54, p ¼ .01], as shown in Table 20. The magnitude of the differences in the means was very large for modal adjuncts (eta squared ¼ .13), and moderately large for mood-marking Themes (eta squared ¼ .10). 5. Implications for instruction The second research question concerns the implications for instruction in thematic choice that Chinese college students need, based on the findings reported in Section 4, which point to overuse of marked Themes, conjunctive adjuncts, and interpersonal Themes. Table 20 Mean scores and t-test results for modal adjuncts and mood-marking Themes in CCS and NS essays.

Modal adjunct Mood-marking Theme

Type

N

Mean

SD

t

df

Sig

CCS NS CCS NS

30 30 30 30

1.57 .67 .23 .00

1.55 .61 .50 .00

2.97

58 58 58 58

.00

2.54

.01

64

J. Wei / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 50–67

5.1. Overuse of marked themes Chinese college students tended to overuse marked Themes of the following types: temporal, spatial, and contingency adjuncts. Unmarked Themes contribute to topic continuity by identifying major participants in the text and in the identity chains that help to make the discourse coherent (North, 2005, p. 437). The Themes that do not serve as the subject are marked Themes, and they contribute to any change from spatial to temporal settings (North, 2005, p. 437). The greatest difference in marked Themes between Chinese college student essays and English native speaker essays lay in contingency, where Chinese college students tended to include information for circumstances such as condition, concession, and default, as in (10) and (11) for condition, (12) for concession, and (13) for default:

(10) (11) (12) (13)

With coal, /human can cook food, invent some new transportation and produce another new power. (CCS-03) With the development of economy and industry and the increasing population, /pollution is becoming heavier and heavier (CCS-08) In spite of its plainness, /my family consider it the most important. (CCS-26) Without trees, /you can’t make any buildings. (CCS-16)

Overuse of circumstantial elements as marked themes may restrict English learners’ ability to focus on or expand important information and key concepts because these elements make it difficult to draw on the Rheme of a previous clause for the Theme of the next clause (Qian et al., 2007, p. 110). It is therefore suggested that Chinese students should be taught to manipulate information when writing in English. This involves raising their awareness of placing appropriate information in topical Theme position and introducing various activities in which they could learn to identify important concepts in their essays and arrange them in a way to make the discourse coherent. 5.2. Overuse of conjunctive adjuncts Chinese college students also tended to use more conjunctive adjuncts than native speakers mainly because they used a lot of conjunctive adjuncts of the additive, adversative, and temporal type, which is in line with Leedham’s (2014) findings for Chinese learners. Examples are provided in (14), (15) and (16) (additive), (17) and (18) (adversative), and (19) (temporal).

(14) Moreover, they/beautify our town in an essential way. (CCS-02) (15) In addition, it/is also very significant to my country. (CCS-06) (16) What’s more, a city/which has a lot of trees will not have many sand storm because the green trees stopped the sand, only let the wind in. (CCS-013) (17) However, my family/consider the kitchen the most important room in our house. (CCS-017) (18) On the other hand, others/are not as important as living room. (CCS-027) (19) Firstly, trees/can make the air fresher because they can absorb dust and many other different particles. Secondly, because of population is increasing rapidly, /people need more land for farming and raising animals, especially in areas of north western China. Third, our city/is covered with buildings and cars. (CCS-008)

Excessive use of conjunctive adjuncts may result from English learners’ limited understanding of logical relationships (Gardezi & Nesi, 2010, p. 236), from their attempts to give a superficial appearance of academic style (Hawes & Thomas, 2012, p. 182), or from the crosslinguistic influence of their native language (Green et al., 2000, p. 102). It is therefore important for Chinese students to know that conjunctive adjuncts are not necessarily thematic and that they may occur elsewhere in the clause (Halliday, 2014, p. 132). Exposure to alternative thematic choices such as conjunctions would also be helpful. This could be done through explicit instruction in strategies for producing denser, more integrated texts through condensation of information (Qian et al., 2007, p. 112), integrated with writing assignments such as noticing and identifying cohesive devices in a text, gap-filling tasks, or connecting and transforming sentences into texts.

5.3. Overuse of interpersonal themes Chinese college students frequently selected an interpersonal starting point in their writing, especially in the form of modal adjuncts and mood-marking Themes. Interpersonal Themes are characteristic of dialogue, in which the speaker may be calling the attention of the listener (as in the use of vocatives), or expressing his or her own angle on the matter at hand, whether probable, desirable, and so on (as in the case of modal adjuncts) (Halliday, 2004, p. 84), or posing questions (as in the case of mood-marking Themes). Therefore these interpersonal Themes often do not sit comfortably in the essay genre. Overuse of interpersonal Themes is counterproductive in two ways: On the one hand, it creates a dialogic method of development similar to that found in conversational language, and on the other hand, essays can appear less dense in information as a dialogic method of development foregrounds interpersonal meaning (Martin, 1992, pp. 437-448). Further analysis of modal adjuncts in Chinese English learner essays reveals that they tended to use a lot of I think and other expressions with similar meanings to express “opinion”, as in (20), (21), (22), and (23):

J. Wei / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 50–67

(20) (21) (22) (23)

65

I think camphor trees/are important to me and my hometown. (CCS -05) So I think the tree/is very important for us, not only our living, but also our health. (CCS -13) In my opinion, the most important room/is living room. (CCS -19) And I think the most important part in my house/is living room. (CCS -22)

Another common interpersonal Theme is that of the “persuasion” type. Chinese college students tended to place phrases which have the meaning of “as is known to all” at the beginning of a clause, as in (24), (25), and (26):

(24) (25) (26)

Just as you know, mango/is a kind of nourishing fruit. (CCS 002) As we all known, trees/are important for human. (CCS 005) As we know, trees/can protect water and soil from losing. (CCS 016)

Modal Adjuncts of the “evaluation” type also appeared frequently in Chinese college student essays. These include phrases such as most importantly, above all, on the whole, and so on, as in (27), (28), and (29): (27) (28) (29)

Most importantly, the longan/accompanied me for all my childhood. (CCS 012) Above all, a good living room/can make our family seemed more peaceful. (CCS 022) Above all, living room/plays a great part in our family life. (CCS 027)

Personal references and subjective attitudes are certainly hard to avoid, as learners are explicitly prompted to give their personal opinions in the case of argumentative essays (Recski, 2004, p. 3). However, it is important for students to channel the demonstration of personal affect or emotion towards a topic in a different manner, for example, by employing expressions such as It is my belief that., or It is true that. in place of expressions such as I think or in my opinion. It is also important to teach them to use personal pronouns appropriately in English writing. Speech-like features such as I and you which constantly appeared in their essays should be reduced, as they might convey an impression of informality. 6. Conclusion This paper examined how Chinese college students accomplish thematic choice differently in their English essays from native speakers of English. They used proportionally fewer topical Themes mainly because they used significantly more interpersonal Themes, especially modal adjuncts and mood-marking Themes. Significant differences were also found in marked Themes where Chinese college students used more adjuncts for manner and contingency. In terms of textual Themes, Chinese college students used significantly more conjunctive adjuncts and fewer conjunctions. This research demonstrated that Chinese college students do not seem to comprehend fully how Themes function in English in ordering information and building up the framework of a text, or how they could make use of the Theme position to develop their writing. They especially tended to place circumstances of contingency, modal adjuncts, and conjunctive adjuncts in the Theme position, all of which are more likely to be found in the latter half of an utterance. It is therefore proposed that Chinese college students be informed of the importance of the Theme position in organizing meaning in English texts, and introduced to alternative thematic choices and strategies in manipulating information by means of activities and writing assignments. Funding This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [Grant number: SWU1509305]. Acknowledgments I am deeply grateful to Dr. Harwood and the four anonymous reviewers for their encouraging and constructive comments that helped improve my manuscript. I would also like to thank Ms. Keri Ann Moore, a Peace Corps volunteer, for proofreading my manuscript. I am also grateful for helpful feedback on this research by Professor Liu Chengyu, Professor Roland Sussex, and by delegates at the 4th International Conference on English, Discourse and Intercultural Communication (2013) in Macau where an earlier version of this paper was presented. Special thanks to the Chinese college student participants in the College of International Studies and American college student participants in Chinese language programs at Southwest University, China. References Aijmer, K. (2002). Modality in advanced Swedish learners’ written interlanguage. In S. Granger, J. Hung, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora. Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 55-76). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

66

J. Wei / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 50–67

Alonso, S., & McCabe, A. (2003). Improving text flow in ESL learner compositions. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(2). Available at: http://iteslj.org/Articles/ Alonso-ImprovingFlow.html. Altenberg, B., & Tapper, M. (1998). The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners’ written English. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 80-93). London & New York: Addison-Wesley Longman. Belmonte, I. A., & McCabe-Hidalgo, A. (1998). Theme-rheme patterns in L2 writing. Didáctica, 10, 13-31. Berry, M. (1995). Thematic options and success in writing. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Thematic development in English texts (pp. 55-84). London: Pinter. Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (1992). Given and new information in the thematic organization of text: An application to the teaching of academic writing. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics, 6(1), 33-43. Bohnacker, U., The clause-initial position in L2 Swedish declaratives: Word order variation and discourse pragmatics. The Nordic Languages and Second Language Acquisition Theory, special issue of Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 33(02), 2010, 105143. Bohnacker, U., & Rosén, C. (2008). The clause-initial position in L2 German declaratives: Transfer of information structure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(04), 511-538. Boström Aronsson, M. (2005). Themes in Swedish advanced learners’ written English (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg. Cai, J. T. (1998). The influence of Chinese topic-prominent features on Chinese EFL learners’ compositions. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 4, 17-21. Chen, X. (2010). Discourse-grammatical features in L2 speech: A corpus-based contrastive study of Chinese advanced learners and native speakers of English (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong. Christie, F., & Dreyfus, S. (2007). Letting the secret out: Successful writing in secondary English. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 30(3), 235-247. Davies, F. (1994). From writer roles to elements of text: Interactive, organizational and topical. In L. Barbara, & M. Scott (Eds.), Reflections on language learning (pp. 170-183). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Davies, F. (1997). Marked theme as a heuristic for analyzing text-type, text and genre. In J. Pique, & D. J. Viera (Eds.), Applied languages: Theory and practice in ESP (pp. 45-79). Valencia: Universidad de Valencia. Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ebrahimi, S. F., & Ebrahimi, S. J. (2012a). Factuality in undergraduate students’ writings. International Journal of English and Education, 1(1), 137-144. 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., & Khedri, M. (2013). Multiple theme and cohesion: A case of EFL students’ composition writing. Iranian EFL Journal, 9(3), 248-260. Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Continuum. Fawcett, R. P. (2008). Invitation to systemic functional linguistics through the Cardiff grammar: An extension and simplification of Halliday’s systemic functional grammar. London: Equinox. Forey, G. (2002). Aspects of theme and their role in workplace texts (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Glasgow: University of Glasgow. Fries, P. H. (1995). Themes, methods of development, and texts. In R. Hasan, & P. H. Fries (Eds.), On subject and theme: A discourse functional perspective (pp. 317-359). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fries, P. H., & Francis, G. (1992). Exploring theme: Problems for research. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics, 6, 45-60. Gardezi, S. A., & Nesi, H. (2010). Variation in the writing of economics students in Britain and Pakistan: The case of conjunctive ties. In M. Charles, D. Pecorari, & S. Hunston (Eds.), Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse (pp. 236-250). London: Continuum. Ghadessy, M. (1999). Thematic organization in academic article abstracts. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad complutense, 7, 141-161. Gilquin, G., & Paquot, M. (2008). Too chatty: Learner academic writing and register variation. English Text Construction, 1(1), 41-61. Gosden, H. (1992). Discourse functions of marked theme in scientific research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 11(3), 207-224. Gosden, H. (1993). Discourse functions of subject in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 56-75. Granger, S. (2009). The contribution of learner corpora to second language acquisition and foreign language teaching: A critical evaluation. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and language teaching (pp. 13-32). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Granger, S., & Rayson, P. (2013). Automatic lexical profiling of learner texts. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 119-131). New York: Routledge. Granger, S., & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15(1), 17-27. 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. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. Revised by C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (3rd ed.). London: Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar. Revised by C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (4th ed.). New York: Routledge. Hasselgård, H. (2009a). Temporal and spatial structuring in English and Norwegian student essays. In R. Bowen, M. Moberg, & S. Ohlander (Eds.), Corpora and discourse – And stuff (pp. 93-104). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Hasselgård, H. (2009b). Thematic choice and expressions of stance in English argumentative texts by Norwegian learners. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and language teaching (pp. 121-139). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 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. Herriman, J., & Boström Aronsson, M. (2009). Themes in Swedish advanced learners’ writing in English. Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 33, 101-120. Hu, H. Y. (2008). On textual cohesion in Chinese students’ English writing. Journal of Zhejiang Normal University (Social Science), 33(3), 113-116. Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Jalilifar, A. (2010). Thematization in EFL students’ composition writing and its relation to academic experience. RELC Journal, 41(1), 31-45. Lee, J. Y. (2005). Longman iBT TOEFL writing. Beijing: World Publishing Corporation. Leedham, M. (2014). Chinese students’ writing in English: Implications from a corpus-driven study. New York: Routledge. Lu, A. (2013). A functional grammar approach to analyzing Asian students’ writing. American Journal of Educational Research, 1(2), 49-57. Martin, J. R. (1992). English text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Martin, J. R. (1995). More than what the message is about: English theme. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Thematic development in English texts (pp. 223-259). London/ New York: Pinter. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse. London: Bloomsbury Academic. McCabe, A. (1999). Theme and thematic patterns in Spanish and English history text (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Birmingham: Aston University. Mellos, V. D. (2011). Coherence in English as a second language undergraduate writing: A theme-rheme analysis (unpublished M.A. thesis). San Diego: San Diego State University. Narita, M., & Sugiura, M. (2006). The use of adverbial connectors in argumentative essays by Japanese EFL college students. English Corpus Studies, 13, 23-42. Neff, J., Ballesteros, F., Dafouz, E., Martínez, F., Rica, J. P., Diez, M., & Prieto, R. (2007). A contrastive functional analysis of errors in Spanish EFL university writers’ argumentative texts: Corpus-based study. In E. Fitzpatrick (Ed.), Corpus linguistics beyond the word: Corpus research from phrase to discourse (pp. 203-225). Amsterdam: Rodopi. North, S. (2005). Disciplinary variation in the use of theme in undergraduate essays. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 431-452. Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual (4th ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Paquot, M. (2010). Academic vocabulary in learner writing: From extraction to analysis. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Paquot, M., Hasselgård, H., & Ebeling, S. O. (2013). Writer/reader visibility in learner writing across genres: A comparison of the French and Norwegian components of the ICLE and VESPA learner corpora. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Twenty years of learner corpus research: Looking back, moving ahead (pp. 377-387). Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.

J. Wei / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 50–67

67

Petch-Tyson, S. (2013). Reader/writer visibility in EFL persuasive writing. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 107-118). New York: Routledge. Qian, Y., Andrés Ramírez, J., & Harman, R. (2007). EFL Chinese students and high stakes expository writing: A theme analysis. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 9, 99-125. Recski, L. J. (2004). Expressing standpoints in EFL written discourse. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem, 2(3), 1-16. Robinson, P. C. (1991). ESP today: A practitioner’s guide. London: Prentice Hall. Rørvik, S. (2012). Thematic progression in learner language. In S. Hoffmann, P. Rayson, & G. N. Leech (Eds.), English corpus linguistics: Looking back, moving forward (pp. 165-177). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Rørvik, S., & Egan, T. (2013). Connectors in the argumentative writing of Norwegian novice writers. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Twenty years of learner corpus research: Looking back, moving ahead (pp. 401-410). Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain. Rose, D. (2001). Some variation in theme across languages. Functions of Language, 8(1), 109-146. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Thompson, G. (2014). Introducing functional grammar (3rd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. Thompson, G., & Thompson, S. (2009). Theme, subject and the unfolding of text. In G. Forey, & G. Thompson (Eds.), Text type and texture (pp. 45-69). London: Equinox. Ventola, E. (1994). Finnish writers’ academic English: Problems with reference and theme. Functions of Language, 1(2), 261-293. Wei, J. (2013a). Corpus-based research on the development of theme choices in Chinese learners’ English speech. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(16), 3845. Wei, J. (2013b). Corpus-based research on topical theme choices in Chinese and Swedish English learner writings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(12), 2202-2208. Wei, J. (2014). Theme and thematic progression in learner English: A literature review. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 16(1), 67-80. Jing Wei is an associate professor in College of International Studies at Southwest University, China. She holds a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics. Her research interests include second language acquisition and English for specific purposes.