Change in the use of conjunctive devices in student academic writing

Abstract

Conjunctions, as a cohesive device, have received much attention in research on student writing (e.g. Adeyemi, 2017; Bahaziq, 2016; Dastjerdi & Samian, 2011; Henning 2006; Ramasawmy, 2004). The challenges English second language (L2) students have in using conjunctions in their writing is also well documented (Yang & Sun, 2012:33; Granger & Tyson, 1996:17-27). The current study contributes to this body of research on conjunctions in L2 student writing by comparing conjunctive use in two Southern African corpora collected roughly two decades apart, namely the Tswana Learner English Corpus (TLEC) and the South African Multilingual Corpus (SAMuLCAT). The TLEC is representative of the English writing of students who are first language (L1) speakers of Setswana during the period 2001-2003 while the SAMuLCAT data is representative of the writing of students whose L1 is Setswana, Sesotho or Sepedi during the period 2017-2020. The overarching aim of this study is to come to a better understanding of the challenges involved in the use of conjunctions in present-day L2 student writing by comparing recent corpus data (SAMulCAT) to data collected two decades ago (TLEC). The first objective is to identify the various conjunctive devices used in each corpus, noting most frequent, as well as potentially problematic uses. The second objective is to identify the differences in conjunction use between the two corpora. The third aim is to identify reasons for the choice and distribution of conjunctions in the two corpora and to explore the implications of the differences between the two periods. As in other studies of conjunctions in L2 student writing (cf. e.g. Dastjerdi & Samian, 2011; Adeyemi, 2017), this study makes use of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) as theoretical framework (Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014). In SFL, a semanticofunctional classification of conjunctions is provided which distinguishes extending conjunctions (e.g. furthermore, and), elaborating conjunctions (e.g. however) and enhancing conjunctions (e.g. because, although).The results of this study show clear differences in the use of conjunctive devices between the TLEC and the SAMuLCAT. Certain conjunctions are used significantly more frequently in the TLEC (e.g. or, but, also, on the other hand), while other conjunctions are used significantly more frequently in the SAMuLCAT (e.g. and, moreover, furthermore, in addition). The choice of conjunction in the TLEC is more consistent with informal registers. With regard to coordinating conjunctions, the conjunction and is used more frequently in the SAMuLCAT, while the coordinating conjunctions but and or are used more frequently in the TLEC. With regard to the elements conjoined, more clauses were conjoined with the coordinating conjunction and in the TLEC than the SAMuLCAT, while more phrases were conjoined in the SAMuLCAT than in the TLEC. Differences in the use of other conjunctions were also observed. Extending conjunctions used more frequently in the TLEC than in the SAMuLCAT include also, and on the other hand, whereas moreover and furthermore are used more frequently in the SAMuLCAT than in the TLEC. The elaborating conjunctions in other words, that is and for example were used more frequently in the TLEC than in the SAMuLCAT, whereas in particular was used more frequently in the SAMuLCAT than in the TLEC. The enhancing conjunctions similarly and lastly were used more frequently in the SAMuLCAT than in the TLEC. These findings highlight differences in the use of conjunctions between the two corpora.