Investigating the Instruction and Usage Frequency of Transition Markers in Grammar Textbooks: Focusing on English for Academic Purposes Books

Investigating the Instruction and Usage Frequency of Transition Markers in Grammar Textbooks: Focusing on English for Academic Purposes Books

^[1]Sahar Hayatolain

^[2]Mansoor Ganji*

Research Paper                                                IJEAP- 2304-1957

Received: 2023-01-18                                 Accepted: 2023-03-27                             Published: 2023-03-29

Abstract: This study examines the frequency and pedagogical approaches of transition markers in three Iranian and three corresponding foreign English for Academic Purposes (EAP) grammar textbooks. Employing Hyland's (2005) interpersonal metadiscourse model, this research discerns the prevalence of transition markers, specifically focusing on indicators of addition, comparison and contrast, and consequence. A close analysis of the pedagogical dimension of transitions is conducted through the application of Walkova's (2020) ten principles. The findings showed that transitions of addition manifest the highest prevalence, while those of consequence emerge as the least prevalent category in both Iranian and foreign textbooks. Moreover, transitions appeared more significantly in Iranian textbooks than in foreign textbooks. However, the textbooks examined universally display a dearth of demonstrable commitment toward effective principles for instructing transitions. In spite of less frequent usage of transitions within their context, foreign textbooks evince a comparatively higher propensity for implementing the principles of effective instruction of transition than Iranian textbooks. The results of Chi-square tests indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) across all three categories. The findings of this study strongly advocate that material developers and curriculum designers embrace the recommended principles for teaching transition markers.Top of FormBottom of Form

Keywords: EAP, Grammar Textbook, Metadiscourse, Pedagogy, Transition Marker

Introduction

Writing is regarded as a social activity in which writers connect with their readers to deliver messages (Amiryousefi & Eslami Rasekh, 2010; Rashid, et al., 2016). Writing, due to its complexity of grammatical structures, spelling, vocabulary, and pronunciation, can be regarded as the most difficult skill in the English language to master (Rao, 2017). Having a strong command of English writing abilities is more important than ever, and throughout their education and under-graduation, students are often required to write various types of writing, such as essays, reports, summaries, and letters (Hyland, 2008). According to Parina and de Leon (2013), improving writing skills is, therefore, critical for students to succeed not just in their academic courses, but also in their future professional employment because presenting knowledge effectively and persuasively is strongly tied to good writing ability. As stated above, one of the most important and widely needed genres of writing is academic writing. As Mckinely (2017) argues, learners face numerous challenges when learning academic writing in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context. For instance, most university students encounter difficulties in receiving not sufficient advice and guidance on using metadiscourse markers or possibly evaluative expressions (Morton & Storch, 2018). To be more exact, EFL postgraduates appear to struggle with academic writing (Almatarneh et al., 2018; Jomaa & Bidin, 2016) in terms of adopting a position and expressing their voice. Consequently, successful writers should be conversant with a variety of rhetorical aspects that can be used to emphasize the uniqueness of their writings, evaluate their findings, and develop harmony with their readers (Hyland & Jiang, 2017). Metadiscourse devices can help achieve this harmony by assisting readers in understanding the messages within the text. Through metadiscourse, an external reality or message is constructed and communicated through an internal stylistic map (Zarei & Mansouri, 2007).

Among the metadiscoursal devices are transition markers which pose a great challenge for second language learners (Walkova, 2020). Transition markers can indicate addition (e.g., and, furthermore, by the way, etc.), comparison and contrast (e.g., likewise, equally, however, on the other hand, etc.), and consequence (e.g., thus, therefore, in conclusion, etc.). The use of transition markers in academic writing has been highlighted as crucial for producing high-quality work (Letsoela, 2014), building a relationship with readers (Zarrati et al., 2014), and creating coherence in writing (Tan & Wong, 2014). This importance has been frequently emphasized in literature (Hyland, 2004; Hyland & Tse, 2004). However, there is an increasing concern about the quality of academic writing, particularly among students of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) (Lu, 2011), who may struggle with employing metadiscourse markers effectively due to inadequate instruction in their secondary education (Ho & Li, 2018). The direct instruction of transition markers is crucial, as some students may experience issues with using a variety of these markers or maintaining a balance in their writing (Kalajahi et al., 2012; Ghanbari et al., 2016). Furthermore, the frequency of use of transition markers in instructional materials should also be taken into account for incidental learning (Pigada & Schmitt, 2006). Therefore, this study investigates both the frequency of use and direct instruction of transition markers in grammar textbooks, aiming to address both incidental and intentional learning of this element, in other words the study questions are as follows:

Research Question One: Based on Hyland's (2005) taxonomy, to what extent do the six selected grammar textbooks make use of transition markers in their texts?

Research Question Two: To what extent do the selected textbooks adhere to Walkova’s (2020) principles of effective teaching of transition markers?

Research Question Three: What are the differences between the selected textbooks in terms of their frequency of use and pedagogy of transition markers?

Review of Literature

The use of connectors (or 'connectives') in student writing has been the subject of considerable research in the past.  Several studies have investigated the use of linking adverbials in Chinese academic writing. Han (2018) and Gao (2016) found that Chinese and English native speakers use a similar number of linking adverbials, and non-science disciplines use more than science disciplines. Gardner and Han (2018) discovered that while, whereas, on the other hand, and in contrast were the most commonly used contrast transitions by Chinese students. However, Lei (2012) and Liu (2013) revealed that Chinese students tend to overuse linking adverbials, misapply some of them, and overuse corroborative linking adverbials. Additionally, Leedham and Cai (2013) and Feng and Choei (2016) found that Chinese ESL students use more adverbials than native speakers, favor sentence-initial adverbs and specific linking adverbs, and have limited awareness of writing register. Finally, some scholars have studied linking adverbials in the academic writing of other L1 groups, such as Arabic.

Abumelha and Alyousef (2019) conducted a study to compare the use of linking adverbials between Arabic first language (L1) and native speaker research articles in linguistics. The study analyzed approximately 80 articles from a linguistics journal and found that some Arab scholars tended to overuse additive adverbs compared to other types of linking adverbials. Similarly, Fakhra (2009) compared Syrian students' essays with those of native speakers and discovered that causal and additive types were used almost twice as frequently as by British writers. Fakhra (2009) further noted that Syrian students tend to overuse causal adjuncts in their essays, while Abusharkh (2012) found that Palestinian students tend to underuse them in their argumentative essays.

Appel and Szeib (2018) and Appel (2020) conducted studies that analyzed the use of linking adverbials in English essays written by students with different language backgrounds. The results showed that L1 Arabic EFL writers tend to overuse additive linking adverbials, L1 Chinese EFL writers overuse contrastive linking adverbials, and L1 French EFL writers overuse appositional linking adverbials. Additionally, L1 English writers tend to underuse summative items. Nakayama (2021) examined the frequency and distribution of linking adverbials in Japanese EFL learners' and native speakers' speeches and essays, finding that Japanese students tend to overuse linking adverbials compared to native English users, with a preference for using them at the beginning of sentences. Kayonde (2021) analyzed 662 essays written by undergraduate students in Burundi and found that connectors adding information and result connectors were the most frequently used, while transition connectors were rarely used. In Iraq, Aziz and Nuri (2021) analyzed a corpus of essays written by Kurd EFL learners and found a preference for sequential and additive adverbial conjuncts over adversative and causal adverbial conjuncts, with a tendency to use a small number of conjunctive adverbs at the beginning of sentences.

As for the investigation of instruction of transition markers exclusively in textbooks, in a recent study, Walkova (2020) suggested ten principles regarding the instruction of transition markers and conducted a study on the subject. The results of her study indicated a rather low application of the principles in the textbooks. Several studies have investigated the use of transitions in academic writing by comparing the writing of Iranian EFL writers to native speakers of English. The studies have shown that Iranian writers tend to overuse transition markers, possibly due to the influence of their native language writing culture. The studies have also found that non-native English writers exhibit an overuse of transition markers when writing in English.

Bahrami (2012) conducted a study analyzing the frequency of use and distribution of transition markers in 45 selected articles written by Iranian and native speakers of English. The results showed that when compared to English, Persian uses more transition markers. Another study by Farhadi Cheshmeh Morvari and Alipour (2020) analyzed the linking adverbials in 60 native articles and 60 non-native Iranian articles. The results showed that there was a significant difference in linking adverbial density between natives and non-natives, with non-native writing characterized by a relative overuse of additive and adversative linking adverbials.

Sabzevari et al. (2016) analyzed the use of conjunctive adverbials in sentence-initial position in research articles. The study included 30 articles written by native writers and 30 articles written by EFL students. The study found that both EFL and native English writers used the same set of connectors. However, EFL writers used more connectors than native speakers at the word level, while native speakers used more connectors at the sentence level. In contrast to the previous studies, Gorjian et al. (2013) found a pattern of underuse of conjunctive adverbials by Iranian writers in a study analyzing 180 papers published in prestigious journals by Iranian and native speakers of English.

This article discusses a gap in research regarding the use of transition markers in grammar textbooks, both in Iran and foreign countries, for teaching transitions to academics. Most previous studies focused on research articles written by native and non-native speakers of English. The study aims to investigate the use and instruction of transitions in three Iranian and three foreign grammar textbooks using specific models and principles, in order to fill the gap in research and provide insights into the effectiveness of teaching transitions in grammar textbooks.

Method

Design of the Study

Since the nature of this research was not experimental, no treatment was applied in this study. As used by Yazdani and Salehi (2016) in a study on metadiscourse markers, a descriptive data analysis method must be adopted to conduct an in-depth analysis of transition markers. Thus, this method was followed to analyze the transition markers in the six selected textbooks.

Materials

The study analyzed six English grammar textbooks, three written by Iranian writers and three by foreign writers, to determine the frequency of transition markers and their pedagogy in teaching transitions. All selected textbooks were from the EAP genre and exclusively focused on grammar as the main source of instruction for transition markers. The textbooks were selected based on three criteria: similar proficiency levels, availability of a searchable PDF version, and choosing only native American or British writers for foreign textbooks. Table 1 provides details of the selected textbooks.

Table 1

 Foreign English Grammar Textbooks Details

 Instrument

To investigate the frequency of transition markers in the selected textbooks, Hyland’s (2005) suggested taxonomy of transition markers was used in this study. The reason behind such selection of this taxonomy was that, as stated by Zarei and Mansouri (2011), this classification is exclusively designed for academic writing. Secondly, this taxonomy is fairly new and as stated by Hyland (2005), includes previous models. Third, according to Heng and Tan (2010), it is a developing and open model in that any studies on metadiscourse can add up to the metadiscourse items included in the model. This classification is presented in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1

Hyland (2005) Metadiscourse Model

Furthermore, as for the aim of investigating these textbooks in terms of the pedagogy of transition markers, Walkova (2020) suggested ten principles regarding teaching transition markers which were applied as a criterion for judging the quality of the instruction of this matter. The reason for such a choice of principles is that they are comprehensible, clear and are very much the only principles uniquely designed to evaluate the instruction of transition markers in textbooks. A summary of these ten principles which were taken from Walkova’s (2020) study, is presented in Table 2.

Table 2

Principles of Instruction of Transition Markers (Walkova, 2020, p. 17-21)

Data Collection and data analysis Procedure

To determine the frequency of transition markers, the researchers obtained searchable PDF files of the selected grammar textbooks and used the control+F command to find each marker. Hyland's (2005) taxonomy was used to identify transition markers and sections such as introduction, practice, and appendix were excluded. All identified markers were closely examined for their metadiscoursal value. The adherence of each textbook to ten principles by Walkova (2020) was evaluated through manual examination and qualitative judgment. The study used a mixed-methods data analysis technique with SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) 27 to interpret collected data and Chi-square tests to check for significant differences between Iranian and foreign textbooks. Lastly, scores were allocated to each degree of adherence to the principles and comparisons were made between two series of textbooks. The data analysis tool was content analysis of selected grammar textbooks by two raters using the mentioned frameworks.

 Results and Discussion

Frequency of Transition Markers

The study’s first research question was the extent to which the selected grammar textbooks used transition markers. As illustrated in the following table, transition markers were classified according to their type, frequency, percentage, and density.

   Table 3

   Transition Markers’ Frequency, Percentage, and Density in the Selected Textbooks

An overview of the results indicates that transition markers appear to be more frequently used in Iranian textbooks than in foreign ones as is evident by the results. The total frequency of transition markers in Iranian textbooks (2241) is much higher than that in foreign textbooks (1275). On average, Iranian authors made use of transition markers almost twice the number of foreign authors. Overall, 36 types of transition markers were utilized in foreign textbooks and 45 types in Iranian textbooks, indicating that the variety of transition markers was greater in Iranian textbooks than in foreign textbooks. Table 4 displays the raw frequency of transition markers in types and tokens.

Table 4

    Types and Tokens of Raw Frequency of Transition Markers

As suggested by the table, both type and token frequency counts in Iranian textbooks were greater than those of foreign textbooks.

Adherence to Walkova’s (2020) Principles of Teaching Transition Markers

The second research question of the study aimed to investigate the extent to which the six selected grammar textbooks adhere to Walkova’s (2020) principles of teaching transition markers. To this end, all textbooks adherence to Walkova’s principles of teaching transitions were examined:

Authenticity

The first element of effective instruction of transition markers was Authenticity. Only two out of the six selected textbooks, one Iranian and one foreign, used authentic text to model transition markers. It was suggested that using only academic texts in textbooks should be considered authentic material, as the register can affect the use of transition markers. The only Iranian textbook that used authentic academic texts to model transition markers was Academic English grammar for intermediate and advanced learners, specifically for subordinating conjunctions. Good grammar for students, a foreign textbook, also utilized some examples from the corpus of FLOB, which includes the academic genre. Both textbooks properly referenced the original sources of the authentic texts. The study provided some real examples of the use of authentic texts to exemplify the use of transition markers in Academic English grammar for intermediate and advanced learners.

• Criterion-referenced tests are devised before the instruction itself is designed (p.168).
• It is not uncommon to hear the term cousin sister or cousin brother, a common mistake that Indian speakers of English make since they are unable to say just 'cousin,' which would be too vague since it does not distinguish gender (p. 169).
• English verbs appear in a number of distinct forms, whereas modals have a single, invariant form (p. 171).

Besides the above examples, Figure 2 shows some examples of using authentic texts to teach transition markers by “Good grammar for students”, the foreign textbook.

Figure 2

Using Authentic Texts to Model the Use of Transitions (Jackson, 2005, p. 80)

Concordances

The second factor in effectively teaching transition markers was using concordance lines. Concordance lines, as argued by Zare (2020), provide a linguistic resource for examining language because they provide real examples of how the word or phrase in question works based on its co-text. In light of the foregoing, a textbook was considered to follow this principle if it presented any number of concordance lines for any transition markers. Regarding this principle, it was revealed that all six selected textbooks failed to present any number of concordance lines for any of the transition markers under investigation.

Discouraging Overuse

The next important factor in this regard was warning the students against the overuse of transition markers, which might seem to be the responsibility of teachers. A textbook was considered as following this principle if it explicitly warned against the overuse of transition markers. Results revealed that none of the selected textbooks followed this principle. In fact, there was not even a sentence that warns students not to overuse these devices. Despite the fact that the overuse of transition markers is a common problem in the writings of EFL learners and students, textbooks usually fail to address the issue (Walkova, 2020). Therefore, these are the teachers who need to address the issue of overuse and warn against it in classroom discussions and instruction.

Semantic Juxtaposition

Teaching transition markers might be more effective if the devices are semantically juxtaposed. If a textbook presented different semantic classes of transition markers together rather than separately, it was considered a follower of this principle. This principle was not followed by any of the Iranian textbooks as they all presented transition markers separately. On the contrary, from among foreign textbooks, the principle was followed fully in Good grammar for students and to some extent in Understanding and using English grammar. In the former, the textbook presented what it referred to as sentence connectors including the categories of addition, adversative, causal, and temporal, and then proceeded to mention examples of each in several sentences. In the latter, the textbook presented transition markers of Cause and Effect and contrast together; therefore, it was considered to be a follower of the semantic juxtaposition principle to some extent. Figure 3 presents the introduction of transition markers together with Good grammar for students.

Figure 3

Presenting the Three Categories of Transition Markers Together by the Textbook (Jackson, 2005, p. 74)

Figure 4 displays the adherence to the principle of semantic juxtaposition by Understanding and using English grammar.

Figure 4

Presenting the Two Categories of Transition Markers Together by the Textbook (Azar & Hagen, 2016, p. 405)

Semantic Features

Another feature of effective teaching of transition markers is differentiating among the transition markers of the same class by presenting their semantic features. In other words, the textbooks were considered a follower of this principle if they contrasted transition markers within the same class, indicating that they are not freely interchangeable. As suggested by Walkova (2020) this principle was considered to be fully followed in a textbook if it distinguished between transition markers of contrast and concession (e.g., however and even though) or between contrast and contradiction (e.g., in contrast and on the contrary). Further, if a textbook distinguished between cause and effect in the category of consequence, it was considered to follow the principle to some degree, which was the case in our results.

All foreign textbooks failed to follow this principle. Conversely, two of the three selected Iranian textbooks turned out to follow the principle to some degree. Both the textbooks of Academic English grammar for intermediate and advanced learners and English language grammar for college students differentiated between cause and effect markers in the category of consequence. The point worth mentioning is that none of the textbooks seemed to follow the principle to the fullest extent. Figure 5 and Figure 6 illustrate the adherence to the principle of English grammar for intermediate and advanced learners and English language grammar for college students respectively.

Figure 5

Distinguishing between “Cause and Effect” Transition Markers by the Textbook (Sharifzadeh, 2019, p. 343)

Figure 6

Distinguishing between Cause and Effect Transition Markers by the Textbook (Azabdaftari, 2012, pp. 77,80)

 Distinction between Conjunctions and Adverbials 

Besides differentiating between transition markers of the same category, it is also necessary to do this for conjunctions and adverbials. A textbook must follow this principle by teaching the syntactic distinction between conjunctive and adverbial transition markers. Since transition markers can include both conjunctions (e.g., while) and adverbials (e.g., therefore), the distinction between them should be taught. As Liu (2008) pinpoints, conjunctions cannot draw semantic links above the clause level, and hence they link a dependent clause with an independent clause. On the other hand, adverbials can link independent clauses together (Liu, 2008). Another distinction is the fact that adverbials can be transferred to the non-initial sentence position, which is not the case for conjunctions, and this has been problematic for students since they may misuse conjunctions as adverbials (Gardner & Han, 2018). If any number of these distinctions were taught in a textbook, it would be considered a follower of the principle.

This principle was, by and large, the most followed principle by the selected textbooks since it was fully applied in three of six textbooks. Two of the selected foreign textbooks Communicate what you mean and Understanding and using English grammar followed the principle in that they made a distinction between subordinating conjunctions and conjunctive adverbials. Communicate what you mean had separate units on conjunctive adverbs and subordinating conjunctions, explaining their position in the sentence and how they connected independent and dependent clauses. Figure 7 indicates the adherence to the principle by the textbook.

Figure 7

Distinction between Conjunctions and Adverbials by the Textbook (Pollock & Eckstut, 1997, p. IV)

Understanding and using English grammar had a separate unit on adverb clauses, explaining ‘words that introduce adverb clauses’ (also known as subordinating conjunctions). It then, in a separate unit, explained different kinds of connectives and their positions in sentences, with what it calls adverb words (subordinating conjunctions) and transitions (conjunctive adverbials), as subcategories of connectives. The adherence to this principle by this textbook is displayed in Figure 8 below.

Furthermore, among the three selected Iranian textbooks, the textbook Academic English grammar for intermediate and advanced learners applied the principle and made comprehensible explanations of both conjunctions and adverbials, their position in the sentences, and the way they connect independent and dependent clauses. This is displayed in Figure 9.

Figure 8

Distinction between Conjunctions and Adverbials by the Textbook (Azar & Hagen, 2016, pp. viii-ix)

Figure 9

Distinction between Conjunctions and Adverbials by the Textbook (Sharifzadeh, 2019, pp. 132,168)

The two remaining Iranian textbooks namely Grammar for university students and English language grammar for college students, as well as the foreign textbook Good grammar for students did not provide a clear distinction between conjunctive and adverbial. The Iranian textbook English language grammar for college students even asserted that transition markers connect two independent clauses, ignoring how subordinating conjunctions can act as transition markers and connect an independent clause with a dependent one.

Discourse Level

To effectively teach transition markers, it's important to provide practice at both the sentence and text levels. If a textbook provided controlled practice at the text level, it was considered a follower of this principle to the full extent. If it provided practice at both levels, it was considered to follow the principle to some extent. Iranian textbooks failed to follow this principle, while all three foreign textbooks followed it to different degrees. Communicate What You Mean and Understanding and Using English Grammar both offered practice at both levels. Figure 10 and Figure 11 respectively indicate the adherence to the principle by the mentioned textbooks.

Figure 10

Presenting the Controlled Practice at The Level of Sentence and Text by Textbook (Pollock & Eckstut, 1997, pp. 75,76)

Figure 11

The Controlled Practice of Transition Markers by the Textbook (Azar & Hagen, 2016, pp. 382, 406)

Taking a further step, the textbook Good grammar for students offered a complete text as a controlled practice of transition markers (Figure 12) at the end of the sentence connection lesson and therefore was considered to follow the principle fully.

Figure 12

The Controlled Practice of Transition Markers by the Textbook (Jackson, 2008, p. 82)

Stylistic Awareness

This principle suggests that it is important to raise students' awareness of the appropriate use of transition markers in different contexts. A textbook was considered to follow this principle if it highlighted the stylistic aspects of transition markers, particularly if it emphasized how certain uses of transition markers may be inappropriate in academic contexts. For example, a textbook may teach students to avoid using certain transition markers in sentence-initial position or using subordinating conjunctions without an independent clause. The principle also involves teaching students about the informal uses of certain transition markers, such as though and besides. However, none of the selected textbooks were found to follow this principle.

As regards this principle, although a very brief explanation about stylistic awareness was offered in two of the said textbooks, it was concluded that none of the selected textbooks showed an appropriate application of it. From among foreign selected textbooks, only Understanding and using English grammar pointed out that in informal writing, conjunctions can exist in sentence-initial position. Out of Iranian textbooks, Academic English grammar for intermediate and advanced learners warned against using coordinating conjunctions at the sentence-initial position. None of them warned against using informal transition markers (e.g., though, besides) in formal contexts. Still worse, in Academic English grammar for intermediate and advanced learners, though was presented as formal conjunction, which is in complete contradiction with the principle. This is evident in Figure 13. In addition, none of the textbooks elaborated on the problems of sentence-initial transition markers used without an independent clause. Although these textbooks advised the readers against using coordinating conjunctions at the sentence-initial position in formal writing, in some cases they even used but and and at the beginning of their own sentences, which is contradictory to what they instruct. This is a true example of do-it-as-I-say, not do-it-as-I-do. After all, things are easier said than done.

Figure 13

A Claim Made by the Textbook Contradictory to the Principle (Sharifzadeh, 2019, p. 172)

 Combination of Transition Markers

This principle requires a textbook to offer a combination of transition markers with other transition markers or with other metadiscourse markers. None of the selected textbooks followed this principle. According to Walkova (2020), since inept combination or lack of combination of transition markers in students’ writings is not a major issue, this principle is of less importance in comparison with other above-mentioned principles.

 Alternative Phrases

The last, but not the least important, strategy for teaching transition markers is called alternative phrases. A textbook was considered a true follower of this principle only if did it provide any alternative phrases that paraphrased the transition markers. None of the selected textbooks provided students with alternative phrases. Walkova (2020) argues that with the existence of these phrases in textbooks, teachers can exploit and use them in the presentation of the semantics of transition markers or as a part of paraphrasing practice.

Comparing Iranian and Foreign Textbooks Regarding Frequency and Pedagogy

The third question of the study was to examine the differences between the chosen Iranian and foreign grammar textbooks in terms of their frequency of use and pedagogy of transition markers.

Difference in Frequency of Use

The data collected were analyzed using a non-parametric Chi-square test, which was chosen based on previous studies in the literature (Abdi, 2009; Jalilifar, 2008; Zarei & Mansoori, 2007). For each category of transition markers, a test was run. Tables 5, 6, and 7 display the chi-square test results for the categories of addition, comparison and contrast, and consequence respectively.

Table 5

Chi-Square Results for Transition Markers of Addition

Chi-square test results presented in Table 5, i.e., χ² (1, n = 1674) = 470.9, p < 0.05) indicates there was a statistically significant difference in the use of addition markers in Iranian and foreign textbooks. Therefore, χ² (470.9) and p < 0.05 suggest that the two series of textbooks employ addition markers significantly differently.

Table 6

Chi-Square Results for Transition Markers of Comparison and Contrast

Chi-square test results presented in Table 6, i.e., χ² (1, n = 1213) = 456.2, p < 0.05) indicates there was a statistically significant difference in the use of markers of comparison and contrast in Iranian and foreign textbooks. Therefore, χ² (456.2) and p < 0.05 suggest that the two series of textbooks employed comparison and contrast transition markers significantly differently.

Table 7

Chi-Square Results for Transition Markers of Consequence

Chi-square test results presented in Table 7, i.e., χ² (1, n = 629) = 267.4, p < 0.05) indicates there was a statistically significant difference in the use of transition markers of consequence in Iranian and foreign textbooks. Therefore, χ² (267.4) and p < 0.05 suggest that the two series of textbooks employ consequence transition markers significantly differently. In has been suggested by the results that in all three categories of transition markers (addition, comparison and contrast, and consequence), there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the chosen Iranian and foreign textbooks in terms of frequency of use of the markers.

Difference regarding the Pedagogy of Transitions

In order to answer this question, based on the findings of the study in previous questions, some qualitative clarifications and descriptive data on the adherence to the principles by both series of selected textbooks were provided. Table 8 presents a summary of the results of the study regarding the application of the principles in the selected textbooks. The symbol “✔” presents full application, whereas “🗶” indicates partial application. In cases where the principles are not followed, the place is left empty and unmarked.

Table 8

A Summary of Results Based on Walkova’s (2020) Suggested Principles

The study assigned scores of 0, 1, or 2 for each of the 10 principles of teaching transition markers, with 2 indicating full adherence and 0 indicating no adherence. Both Iranian and foreign textbooks showed low adherence to the principles, with none of them following principles 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10. The most followed principle was the distinction between conjunctions and adverbials (principle 6). Foreign textbooks showed higher compliance with the principles than Iranian ones, with a total score of 15 for foreign textbooks and 6 for Iranian textbooks. None of the selected textbooks followed all the principles simultaneously, and it is important for textbooks to follow the more important principles, such as discouraging overuse and raising stylistic awareness. Table 9 shows the scored values for each series of textbooks.

Table 9

Scored Values of Adherence to Walkova's (2020) Principles of Instruction of Transition Markers

The percentage of textbooks that followed Walkova’s suggested principles are displayed in Table 10 (taking into account both cases of full and partial adherence).

Table 10

The Percentage and Average of Iranian and Foreign Textbooks adhering to Walkova’s Principle

It can be concluded that the average of textbooks adhering to the ten principles of teaching transition markers by Walkova’s (2020) is rather low in both series of textbooks, with the average of Iranian textbooks (13%) being almost 2 times less than that of foreign textbooks (30%).

Conclusion and Implications

The study compared the frequency and pedagogy of transition markers in Iranian and foreign textbooks and found that Iranian textbooks used transition markers more frequently than foreign textbooks. However, both Iranian and foreign textbooks did not fully adhere to the principles of the pedagogy of transition markers. Foreign textbooks demonstrated better adherence to these principles than Iranian textbooks. An analysis of transition markers in Iranian and foreign textbooks found that the distribution of markers in the two groups is similar. Despite Iranian textbooks having a higher overall frequency of use, both Iranian and foreign authors showed a similar tendency in terms of which categories to use most and least frequently. As stated above, regarding the use of transitions in two series of textbooks, the selected Iranian textbooks outweighed their English counterparts, by capitalizing more on transition markers. These differences in the use of transition markers may suggest that in the composition of textbooks, Iranian authors may make a concerted effort to organize arguments. The high frequency of transition markers in Iranian textbooks indicates that they attempted to avoid using language monologically in their academic writings. Instead, they implemented several instances of metadiscourse elements in order to present information more engagingly and judiciously. However, foreign textbook authors may be less concerned with providing useful resources for the reader. These results may be indicative of the fact that culture has also influenced the distinctive conventions that are present in this study. As a whole, the findings substantiate the idea that languages use more specific transition markers to make themselves more understandable to their audience. Selected foreign textbooks, despite the lower frequency of markers, showed better adherence to the principles. It can be concluded that for the actual explicit instruction of transition markers, foreign textbooks may be more beneficial for learners.

As far as the pedagogy of transition markers is concerned, the results of the study were in line with that of Walkova (2020), in which the adherence to principles by textbooks was rather low. Principles of concordances, discouraging overuse, stylistic awareness, combination of transition markers, and alternative phrases were the ones whose rate of adherence to was zero in both series of Iranian and foreign textbooks. Given the relative importance of the principles, some of them which are more significant in learning transition markers for students, namely the principle of discouraging overuse should be incorporated into the textbooks (Walkova, 2020). Although Iranian textbooks used a much higher number of transition markers, they fell behind their foreign counterparts in terms of adherence to the principles. This suggests that the high frequency of transition markers does not claim adherence to their principles of pedagogy, as is evident in foreign textbooks.

Further research is needed to address the limitations of the present study. This study focused only on transition markers as a type of interactive metadiscourse, and it is possible that other types of metadiscourse markers are being used in textbooks. Future studies should investigate the use of transition markers in a larger and more diverse sample of textbooks, including different genres such as ESP, to generate more reliable and generalizable findings with clear pedagogical benefits. The study holds practical implications for writers of educational materials, who can utilize the principles outlined in this research to enhance students' understanding and use of transition markers. Educators should consider the learners' needs, the genre of text they will write, and the target audience when designing instructional materials (Amiryousefi & Eslami Rasekh, 2010).

Acknowledgement

The completion of this research paper would not have been possible without the invaluable guidance and support of Dr. Beikian. We express our deepest gratitude for his expertise and insights, which have greatly contributed to the success of this study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Funding Details

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Abdi, R. (2009). Projecting cultural identity through metadiscourse marking: A comparison of Persian and English research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 52, 1-15

Abumelha, M. A., & Alyousef, H. S. (2019). A cross-cultural comparative investigation of linking adverbials in linguistics research articles written in English by native and Arab scholars. Linguistics and Literature Studies, 7(5), 226–240. https://doi.org/10.13189/lls.2019.070506

Abusharkh, B. (2012). Cohesion and coherence in the essay writing of Palestinian college students [Unpublished MA thesis, Hebron University].

Amiryousefi, M., & Eslami Rasekh, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Definitions, issues and its implications for English teachers. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 159-167. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n4p159

Ansari, M.J. Grammar for university students. Entekhabe Rouz.

Appel, R., & Szeib, A. (2018). Linking adverbials in L2 English academic writing: L1-related differences. System, 78, 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.08.008

Azabdaftari, B. (2012). English language grammar for college students. SAMT.

Azar, B. S., & Hagen, S. A. (2009). Understanding and using English grammar. Allyn & Bacon.

Aziz, A.R., & Nuri, R.B. (2021). Iraqi Kurd EFL learners’ uses of conjunctive adverbials in essays. Arab World English Journal, 12(2), 222-237.

Bahrami, L. (2012). Investigating frequency and distribution of transition markers in English and Persian research articles in applied linguistics: Focusing on their introduction sections. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(10), 2139–2145. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.10.2139-2145

Fakhra, A. (2009). Relative clauses and conjunctive adjuncts in Syrian university student writing in English [Doctoral dissertation, University of Warwick].

Farhadi Cheshmeh Morvari, M., & Alipour, M. (2020). Linking adverbials in applied linguistics research articles comparing English natives and non-native writers. ARTESOL English for Specific Purposes Interest Section ESP E-Journal, 10(1), 3–22.

Feng, X., & Choei, M. (2016). A corpus-based analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ use of linking adverbials. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 24(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.24303/lakdoi.2016.24.1.49

Gao, X. (2016). A cross-disciplinary corpus-based study on English and Chinese native speakers’ use of linking adverbials in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.08.002

Gardner, S., & Han, C. (2018). Transitions of contrast in Chinese and English university student writing. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18, 861–882. http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0067

Ghanbari, N., Dehghani, T., & Shamsaddini, M. R. (2016). Discourse markers in academic and non-academic writing of Iranian EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(7), 1451. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0607.17

Gorjian, B., Pazhakh, A. & Naghizadeh, M. (2013). Comparative study of conjunctive adverbials (CAS) in experimental articles. Global Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2, 39-44.

Han, C. H. (2018). The use of English transition markers in Chinese and British university student writing [PhD dissertation, Coventry University].

Han, C. H. (2018). The use of English transition markers in Chinese and British university student writing [PhD dissertation, Coventry University].

Heng, C., & Tan, H. (2010). Extracting and comparing the intricacies of metadiscourse of two written persuasive corpora. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 6(3), 124–146.

Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students’ timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.001

Hyland, K. (2004). Writing in second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Bloomsbury Academic.

Hyland, K. (2008). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2017). ‘We Believe That . . . ’: Changes in an academic stance marker. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 38(2), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2018.1400498

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied linguistics, 25(2), 156–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156

Jackson, H. (2005). Good grammar for students. SAGE.

Jalilifar, A. (2008). Discourse markers in composition writings: The case of Iranian learners of English as a foreign language. English Language Teaching, 1(2), 114-122.

Jomaa, N. J., & Bidin, S. J. (2016). Roles of the cited author in citations of the literature review by EFL postgraduates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(7), 213–225.

Kalajahi, S., Abdullah, A. N. B., & Baki, R. (2012). Constructing an organized and coherent text: How discourse markers are viewed by Iranian post-graduate students? International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(9), 196-202.

Kayonde, O. (2021). The use of connectors in argumentative writing by EFL undergraduate students from the University of Burundi: A quantitative analysis. International Journal of Research in English Education, 6(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.52547/ijree.6.3.1

Leedham, M., & Cai, G. (2013). Besides . . . on the other hand: Using a corpus approach to explore the influence of teaching materials on Chinese students’ use of linking adverbials. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(4), 374–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.07.002

Lei, L. (2012). Linking adverbials in academic writing on applied linguistics by Chinese doctoral students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(3), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.05.003

Letsoela, P. M. (2014). Interacting with readers: Metadiscourse features in national university of Lesotho undergraduate students’ academic writing. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(6), 138. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v5i6.4012

Liu, G. (2013). On the use of linking adverbials by Chinese college English learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.4.1.149-155

Lu, L. (2011). Metadiscourse and genre learning: English argumentative writing by Chinese undergraduates. Open Dissertation Press.

McKinley, J. (2017). Identity construction in learning English academic writing in a Japanese university. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 14(2), 228–243. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.2.2.228

Mohammad Almatarneh, A. H., Ab Rashid, R., & Yunus, K. (2018). The academic writing experience of Jordanian postgraduate students at a university in Malaysia. SSRN Electronic Journal, 9(3), 248-257. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3258808

Morton, J., & Storch, N. (2018). Developing an authorial voice in PhD multilingual student writing: The reader’s perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 43, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.02.004

Nakayama, S. (2021). A corpus-based analysis of Japanese EFL learners’ linking adverbial use. The Educational Review, USA, 5(6), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.26855/er.2021.06.002

Parina, J.C. M., & de Leon, K. (2013). The significance of language exposure with writing self-efficacy and writing apprehension of Filipino ESL writers. Philippine ESL Journal, 10, 232–244.

Pigada, M., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18(1), 1-28.

Pollock, C. W., & Eckstut-Didier, S. (1997). Communicate what you mean: A concise advanced grammar. Pearson Education ESL.

Poudel, A. P. (2018). Academic Writing: Coherence and cohesion in paragraph. (Research Project). Dhankut M. Campus. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://www. researchgate.net/publication/322537095_Academic_Writing_Coherence_and_Cohesion_in_Paragraph

Rao, P. S. (2017). The characteristics of effective writing skills in English language teaching. Research Journal of English, 2(2), 75–86.

Rashid, R. A., Rahman, M. F. A., & Rahman, S. B. A. (2016). Teachers’ engagement in social support process on a networking site. Journal of Nusantara Studies (JONUS), 1(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol1iss1pp34-45

Sabzevari, A., Haghverdi, H., & Biria, R. (2016). Sentence -initial conjunctive adverbials in academic articles written by native English speakers and Iranian EFL writers. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 6(5), 282-287.

Sharifzadeh, A. (2019). Academic English grammar for intermediate and advanced learners.

Tan, H., & Bee Eng, W. (2014). Metadiscourse use in the persuasive writing of Malaysian undergraduate students. English Language Teaching, 7(7). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n7p26

Walková, M. (2020). Transition markers in EAP textbooks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 46, 100874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100874

Yazdani, A., & Salehi, H. (2016). Comparing metadiscourse markers employed in English and Persian online headlines. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2016.1554

Zare, J. (2020). Awareness of discourse organizers and comprehension of academic lectures: The effect of using concordancers. Current Psychology, 39(2), 419-427. DOI:10.1007/s12144-019-00579-1

Zarei, G., & Mansoori, S. (2011). A Contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non humanities across Persian and English. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n1p42

Zarei, G., & Mansouri, S. (2007). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive analysis of English and Persian research articles. The ESP Journal, 3(2), 24-40

Zarrati, Z., M. K. Nambiar, R., & Tg. Mohd. Maasum, T. N. R. (2014). Effect of metadiscourse on reading comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 20(3), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.17576/3l-2014-2003-03

[1] MA in TEFL, saharhayat1996@gmail.com; English Department, Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar, Iran.

[2] Assistant Professor (Corresponding Author), ganji@cmu.ac.ir; English Department, Chabahar Maritime University Chabahar, Iran.