Exploring the relationship between English language syntax and cohesion in professional discourse
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25047/jeapco.v11i2.5886Keywords:
Syntactic Structures in Professional Writing, Cohesive Devices in Discourse, Textual Coherence in Professional Communication, Discourse Analysis in Professional Contexts, English for Specific Purposes (ESP)Abstract
This study explores the relationship between English language syntax and cohesion in professional discourse across domains such as business, law, medicine, and academia. Using a mixed-methods approach, the research combines quantitative corpus analysis of syntactic structures and cohesive devices with qualitative discourse analysis guided by Hallidayan Functional Grammar. The study analyzes 200 authentic professional texts, sourced from academic databases, institutional repositories, and public domain documents, ensuring a comprehensive and representative sample. Findings reveal that syntactic structures and cohesive devices play crucial roles in shaping textual coherence and comprehension. For instance, coordination establishes hierarchical relationships between clauses, while ellipsis helps maintain consistency by omitting redundant information. However, complex syntactic structures often hinder comprehension, particularly for non-native speakers. A comprehension study conducted with 120 participants (60 native and 60 non-native English speakers) further supports these findings. Native speakers outperformed non-native speakers across all conditions, but both groups benefited significantly from high levels of cohesive devices, particularly in texts with simpler syntax. Statistical analysis using ANOVA shows a significant interaction between syntactic complexity and cohesive devices (p = 0.05), underscoring the importance of balancing these linguistic features. This research contributes to the fields of linguistics, professional communication, and discourse analysis by identifying patterns and correlations that enhance understanding of professional texts.
References
Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. Continuum. https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/worlds-of-written-discourse-9780826454454/
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. https://archive.org/details/variationacrosss0000bibe
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education. https://www.cambridge.org/
Caplan, D., & Waters, G. S. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 77–94. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X99001788
Carrell, P. L. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16(3), 479–488. DOI: 10.2307/3586466
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's course (2nd ed.). Heinle & Heinle Publishers. https://archive.org/details/grammarbookeslef0000celc
Chen, C.W. (2006). The use of conjunctive adverbials in the academic papers of advanced Taiwanese EFL learners. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11, 113-130. https://doi.org/10.1075/IJCL.11.1.05CHE
Crossley, S. A., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A linguistic analysis of simplified and authentic texts. Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 15-30. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ752677
Crossley, S. A., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Assessing the cohesion of writing: The efficacy of indices of textual cohesion. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 291-318. https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/35/3/291/219438 (institutional access or a subscription may be needed) https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu002
Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge.
Fang, A. (2010). Language complexity and text comprehension. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 29-56. https://revistas.um.es/ijes
Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Routledge.
Geva, E. (1992). Is there a text in this reading? Text structure, text coherence, and reading skills. Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1
Greenbaum, S., & Quirk, R. (1990). A student's grammar of the English language. Longman. https://archive.org/details/studentsgrammaro0000sidn
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Cohesion-in-English/Halliday-Hasan/p/book/9780582550414
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. Routledge.
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford University Press.
Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press. https://archive.org/details/cambridgegrammar0000hudd
Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers: Theory and research. John Benjamins Publishing. https://lib.ugent.be/catalog/rug01:002210513
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2016). Teaching and researching writing. Routledge.
Just, M. A. and Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122-149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122
Lemke, J. L. (1985). Using language in the classroom. Oxford University Press. https://www.google.com/search?q=Using+Language+in+the+Classroom+James+L.+Lemke
Markels, R. B. (1984). A New Perspective on Cohesion in Expository Paragraphs. Studies in Writing & Rhetoric. Southern Illinois University Press.
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/us/cambridgeenglish/catalog/teacher-training-development-and-research/discourse-analysis-language-teachers
Perfetti, C. A. and Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (2010). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Pearson Education.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Comprehensive_Grammar_of_the_English_Language?wprov=sfla1
Roozafzai, Z. S., & Talebinejad, M. R. (2014). The sffect of model-essay aid to direct corrective feedback on EFL learners᾽ use of meta-discourse markers in writing. The International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 6 (3): 132-141. July 2014. https://www.academia.edu/9655002/Use_of_Metadiscourse_Markers_in_Writing
Roozafzai, Z. S. (2019). The Study of Ergativity Acquisition by Persian-Speaking Learners of English. i-Manager's Journal on English Language Teaching, 9(4), 5. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1236270
Shen, J. (2008). Second language reading comprehension of English texts with high and low lexical density. Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University. It may not be widely accessible without specific academic access, it is a legitimate reference from a well-known academic institution.
Song, J. and Deng, M. (2024) Advancements in Understanding the Syntax-Discourse/Syntax-Pragmatics Interface—Review of Shigeru Miyagawa (2022): Syntax in the Treetops. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 14, 199-208. doi: 10.4236/ojml.2024.142011.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). University of Michigan Press.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
Tywoniw, R.; Crossley, S. (2019). The effect of cohesive features in integrated and independent L2 writing quality and text classification. Language Education and Assessment. 2 (3), 110 – 134. https://doi.org/10.29140/lea.v2n3.151
Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2013). Syntactic complexity, cohesion, and reading comprehension in adolescent readers. Reading and Writing, 26(5), 773-794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9393-4
van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. Longman. https://www.amazon.com/Text-Context-Explorations-Semantics-Pragmatics/dp/0582291054
Yang, W., & Sun, Y. (2012). The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguistics and Education, 23(1), 31- 48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.09.004
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Zahra Sadat Roozafzai
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
