A Novel Framework For Teaching Academic Writing

his is a contribution from Pragmatics and Society 5:3
© 2014. John Benjamins Publishing Company
his electronic ile may not be altered in any way.
he author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF ile to generate printed copies to
be used by way of ofprints, for their personal use only.
Permission is granted by the publishers to post this ile on a closed server which is accessible
only to members (students and faculty) of the author’s/s’ institute. It is not permitted to post
this PDF on the internet, or to share it on sites such as Mendeley, ResearchGate, Academia.
edu. Please see our rights policy on https://benjamins.com/#authors/rightspolicy
For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the
publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com).
Please contact rights@benjamins.nl or consult our website: www.benjamins.com
Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com
John Benjamins Publishing Company

A novel framework for teaching
academic writing
Hussain Al Sharoui
Gulf University for Science and Technology, Kuwait
his study represents an attempt to create a new framework for teaching aca-
demic writing. he new concept of the ‘Lexical Cohesive Trio’, LCT, combines
elements of textual reference: anaphora, cataphora, and transitional signals
(lexical repetition, bundles, and phrases). 30 English majors from the Gulf Uni-
versity for Science and Technology, GUST, in Kuwait were selected to write a
pre-framework and a post-framework essay. he results were analysed using an
SPSS package t-test. A pairwise t-test conirmed that more transitional signals
were produced ater the framework was used: t(1,29) = –4.938, p-value < 0.001.
Similarly, a pairwise t-test conirmed that more lexical repetitions were pro-
duced ater the framework was used: t(1,29) = –5.218, p-value < 0.001. Finally, a
pairwise t-test conirmed that signiicantly more lexical phrases were produced
ater the framework was used: t(1,29) = –10.672, p-value < 0.001. hese tests
present strong evidence in favour of using LCT, and conirm that using this new
framework enhances students’ ability to write coherent essays.
Keywords: academic writing, teaching framework, lexical cohesive trio, lexical
cohesion, lexical repetition, lexical patterns, lexical phrases
1. Introduction*
Numerous studies have stressed the importance of understanding the behaviour
of lexical units, sometimes known as lexical phrases or bundles, in texts. Kuru-
mada (2009) believes that in the process of language acquisition, children master
* I would like to thank Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences, KFAS, for their
generous grant that helped me participate in TESOL International Convention 2014 in Port-
land-USA, where I delivered a presentation based on the present paper.
I would like also to thank Dr. Munir Mahmoud for his kind revision of the statistical data
in this paper.
Pragmatics and Society 5:3 (2014), 484–507. doi 10.1075/ps.5.3.10sha
issn 1878-9714 / e-issn 1878-9722 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
A novel framework for teaching academic writing 485
pragmatic repertoires prior to learning syntactic rules. his approach leads to a
pragmatic approach to language acquisition, using lexical bundles that are fre-
quently used in discourse. Such units contribute not only to the cohesion of texts,
but also to the production of meaning. According to Boers et al. (2006),
[t]his leads us to the third reason why mastery of formulaic sequences is believed
to be beneicial to learners: formulaic sequences (at least those that are ‘correctly’
committed to memory) may help speakers reach a degree of linguistic accuracy
because these prefabricated chunks constitute ‘zones of safety’ and appropriate
use of them may thus conine the risk of ‘erring’ to the spaces in between the
formulaic sequences in one’s discourse. (Boers et al. 2006:247)
Bahns et al. (1986:693–723) emphasise that it is not only repetitive expression
that is recurrent and standardised, but also the context of a situation that relects
its standardisation and exhibits recurring features. Other studies have explored
the eicacy of investigating cohesive devices in written discourse and whether
this particular activity can be taught directly to non-native students of English.
Whereas the above studies have shown that studying cohesive ties yields sub-
stantial results in understanding the coherent structuring of texts, in the pres-
ent paper, I envisage a new model for textual cohesion, incorporating three main
lexical elements of textual structure. he model is based on a textual trio (called
the ‘Lexical Cohesive Trio’; LCT): reference (anaphora+cataphora+transitional
signals), lexical repetition (based partially on Hoey’s (1995, 2005) framework of
lexical repetition), and lexical phraseology (based on the Manchester Corpus of
academic phrases). he purpose of the present study is to show that if one com-
bines these three textual elements, then one’s understanding of cohesive behaviour
in texts will be more informative and insightful. Notably, based on previous re-
search on the three textual elements mentioned above, none of them, taken by
themselves, proved to be a predominant factor in determining textual cohesion.
here is more to the writing process than cohesion alone, as Witte and Faigley
(1981) suggest:
Just as exclusive focus on syntax and other formal surface features in writing
instruction probably will not better the overall quality of college students’ writ-
ing, neither will a narrow emphasis on cohesion probably produce signiicantly
improved writing. (Witte & Faigley 1981:202)
Based on the Lexical Cohesive Trio Framework, I have created a web-based application
for teaching academic writing called ‘Academic Writing Wizard’, AWW, which can be found at
www.aw-wizard.com.

All rights reserved
486 Hussain Al Sharoui
Lexical cohesion in general plays a crucial role in conveying coherent meaning
(Carter & McCarthy 1988:219). For this study, I asked my students to use the fol-
lowing textual elements: reference (anaphora. cataphora, and transitional signals;
patterns of lexical repetition (simple, complex, and phrasal); and inally lexical
phrases. Deciding which particular lexical phrases to choose in academic writ-
ing relies upon the previous elements. One may even go so far as to say that in-
vestigating the three textual elements together paves the way for understanding
the cognitive planning in which any writer is engaged in before writing an essay
or a research paper. Still, an important caveat of this study is that the suggested
framework is relevant to academic discourse rather than, for instance, literary
discourse. his caveat prevents one from generalising the outcome of this study
to other genres.
Devising a new framework for writing academic discourse is becoming ex-
tremely important with the advent of modern technology. It is not possible to
objectively grade academic essays without properly analysing lexical cohesion in
the text. Traditional subjective methods of grading academic papers are becom-
ing obsolete, and a more efective framework is necessary for evaluating academ-
ic essays. It is hoped that the present study will lay the foundation for a new,
web-based application for teaching academic writing. he suggested framework
is mainly based on teaching the three cohesive elements mentioned here and con-
sidered by many studies to be crucial for lexical cohesion, viz.: reference (anapho-
ra and cataphora); lexical repetition; and lexical bundles (or phrases).
2. Literature review
Several studies have been conducted to examine the eicacy of teaching textual
reference and transitional signals, lexical repetition, and lexical bundles (phrases)
over the last few decades. Michael Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan were among the
irst linguists to determine the importance of reference in creating and conveying
coherent meaning through efective cohesion. According to Halliday and Hasan
(1976), cohesion is a semantic and grammatical feature of texts that works in-
ternally in structuring written and spoken discourse. he classical approach to
lexical cohesion identiies semantic ields and relations between words (Halliday
& Hasan 1976:274–292). Lexical cohesion helps in tracing the rhetorical develop-
ment in discourse. It also operates at the componential level and can help in struc-
turing discourse. As to reference, this has been deined by hompson as “the set
of grammatical resources that allow the speaker to indicate whether something
is being repeated from somewhere earlier in the text (i.e., we have already been
told about it) or whether it has not yet appeared in the text (i.e., it is new to us)”

All rights reserved
(hompson 2004:180). In fact, lexical cohesion contributes to the creation of an
intricate web of lexical relations within the text.
Numerous studies have emphasised the importance of teaching lexical blocks
because of their important role in texturing English texts. Boers et al. (2006:245–
248) observed that certain lexical sequences can substantially afect oral luency.
heir study included 32 college students majoring in English, and the students’
English proiciency was estimated as upper-intermediate to advanced level. he
study investigated whether teaching lexical phrases can help learners become
proicient L2 speakers and whether L2 formulaic sequences can help the learners
add the phrases to their vocabulary. he same teacher taught a group of students
over the same period of time. he students were divided into an experimental
group and a control group; both groups were exposed to identical language input,
and their course materials were identical. he only controlled change from one
group to the other was the emphasis on the importance of noticing phrases. Final-
ly, two judges blind-interviewed the students. he judges listened to the recorded
interviews and counted the correctly formed phrases or lexical chunks that the
students spoke. he results of the experimental study corroborated the hypoth-
esis, indicating that the experimental group performed better than the control
group on both parameters.
Ranjbar et al. (2012) investigated the importance of teaching lexical bundles
to students. he authors emphasise that teaching lexical bundles can lead to auto-
matic recall of textual building blocks in a text, which improves non-native speak-
ers’ ability in academic writing. he authors asked their subjects, 120 language
learners studying TEFL, to sit for an English proiciency test. Of the students, 90
were selected and divided into an experimental group and a control group. Next,
both groups worked on identical textbook content. he researchers instructed
the experimental group how to use lexical bundles in their writing, whereas the
control group was not instructed in using lexical bundles. he results of the post-
test clearly showed that the experimental group was far better than their peers
in consciously using lexical bundles in their academic writing (Ranjbar et al.
2012:243–251). Ranjbar et al. further suggest that content developers should in-
clude teaching methodology, in particular with regard to lexical bundles and their
uses, in the teaching and learning process. he indings of the present study give
empirical support to this view; hence, Ranjbar et al.’s work is pedagogically central
to the domain of language teaching and learning and should be considered in the
design and production of suitable instructional materials and in the methodology
of classroom teaching and students’ learning behaviour.
Biber and Barbieri (2007) investigated various facets of lexical bundles and
focused on these speciic features:

All rights reserved
– Frequency of occurrence of lexical bundles in written or spoken discourse;
– Lexical bundles as incomplete phrases or clauses;
– Lexical bundles as not being ixed expressions, or idioms, but being trans-
parent in their meaning. (Biber & Barbieri 2007:20–21)
Based on the above features of lexical bundles (also called lexical phrases), a group
of linguists at Manchester University developed a database of the most frequently
used lexical bundles, or phrases, in academic discourse. In the present study, I have
used the above deinition of lexical phrases and Manchester University’s database
as components of my Lexical Cohesive Trio. It is my assumption that combining
reference, anaphora, cataphora, transitional words, and lexical repetitions, simple,
complex and phrasal repetition and lexical phrases, or bundles, can positively af-
fect students’ ability in academic writing (Crossley & Salsbury 2011).
As to the second element of the cohesive trio, lexical repetition, Halliday
and Hasan in their classic Cohesion in English (1976) spoke extensively of textual
cohesion, but did not emphasise lexical cohesion. Winter (1979:101) and Hoey
(1995:26–48) emphasised the importance of lexical repetition in creating mean-
ing in text. Hoey speciically emphasised lexical repetition as being prime in any
textual web of connections; he conducted a detailed analysis of lexical repetition,
which he broke down into simple lexical repetition, complex lexical repetition,
simple paraphrase, and complex paraphrase (Hoey 2005).
Another researcher, Huseyin Kafes (2012) investigated, among other things,
the role that lexical repetition plays in improving Turkish students’ writing. Forty
students participated in his study. he data of the study came from written ac-
counts of a story in both Turkish and English. he results showed that there is a
striking similarity between Turkish and English in terms of using lexical repeti-
tion. he results also indicated that repetition of identical lexical items was by far
the most frequently used type of lexical cohesion in both languages; such repe-
tition could therefore have a positive inluence on the Turkish students’ English
writing (Kafes 2012:2–4).
In another study, Zhan (2012) put Hoey’s theory into practice by examin-
ing repetitive lexical patterns news discourse from the Times. She conducted a
detailed study on his corpus to see whether studying repetitive lexical patterns
is useful in understanding textual meaning. he analysis was meant to identify
central sentences that help convey the writer’s intended meaning:
he analysis involves a deep and detailed exploration of the links and bonds
formed by lexical repetitions, from which marginal and central sentences have
been derived. he analysis is believed to have great implications for discourse
analysis and foreign language teaching. (Zhan 2012:2160–2167)

All rights reserved
Back to reference, transitional signals such as conjunctions constitute another
important element of my lexical cohesive trio, inasmuch as they contribute to
creating logical connections in writing. Cohen and Fine (1978) observed that
non-native students of English fail to use proper cohesive ties, in particular con-
junctions, something which causes them to fail to comprehend texts.
In the same vein, Esther Geva posed the following questions in one of her
studies: (1) What is the relation between levels of proiciency in English and con-
junction comprehension? (2) What is the efect of discourse level on conjunc-
tion comprehension? (3) Is there a unique contribution of information regarding
intrasentential and discourse-level knowledge of conjunctions to the predic-
tion of expository text comprehension? (Geva 1992:740–745). To answer these
questions, the researcher selected 100 international immigrant students. Teachers
were requested to assess the level of their students’ comprehension of cohesive
devices. Subjects answered 30 multiple-choice questions on conjunctions. he
researcher also investigated the discourse-level conjunction task. Geva observed
that students’ ability to manage intersentential and intrasentential constraints,
both within the sentence and across discourse, was positively reinforced. his
conirms the hypothesis that conscious use of conjunctions can help students cre-
ate logical connections in extended texts.
3. A proposed framework for writing academic essays
My proposed framework in this paper establishes the starting point of a lexical
roadmap that can further help students comprehend particular pragmatic func-
tions. 30 junior and senior students from the Gulf University for Science and
Technology, GUST, in Kuwait were asked to write two essays for this experiment:
one essay was not based on the suggested framework, while the other was. Stu-
dents were drilled on efectively using the cohesive trio: reference, lexical repeti-
tion, and lexical phrases. Each student was requested to draw boxes in which they
would write all the necessary details in advance. Within the irst box, the students
were requested to state the type of reference they would use in the irst paragraph,
whether anaphoric, cataphoric, etc., specifying each type, the pronoun used, and
the referent. hen, in the next box, they had to specify the type of lexical repetition
they chose; and, inally, the lexical phrases they found most appropriate to link
with the previous two components were placed in the third box. Ater having
performed this process for each paragraph, they would then embark upon writing
the essay, which should at this point be a quite straightforward process.
Aterwards, all of the students were requested to highlight every element of
the trio, references, lexical repetitions, and lexical phrases, using a diferent colour

All rights reserved
for each. In this manner, they could visualise the type of textual web they had cre-
ated in their inal essays. While according to Hoey (1995:76–99), every non-nar-
rative text has a certain web of repetitive patterns, what I suggest here is that
according to my proposed framework, every academic text has in fact a speciic
lexical web, based on the three elements that realistically relect the level of lexical
cohesion in a text. his lexical web comprises the main elements of the aforemen-
tioned trio, without whose full presence the textual structure of the essay would
be weakened.
As to the particular technique described in the present paper, I do not claim
that a purely mechanistic application will promote creativity. My sole purpose
is to show that combining the previously mentioned lexical elements will create
a strong framework that can considerably improve the writing process, without
impairing grammar or blocking rhetorical style in the process. Applying this de-
tailed framework renders non-native students, or even native students, more con-
ident in their writing abilities, because following the framework, what they must
do is to produce relevant ideas and encapsulate them in well-structured sentenc-
es, using the rules of syntax.
When explaining the framework to my students, I underlined the importance
of textual cohesion in creating a structurally luent text. Being aware of the role
of cohesion, lexical repetition, and phrasal repetition in texts helps non-native
students of English write more efectively and conidently. I requested that my
students decide what types of logical and textual relations they wanted to use in
their essays. he initial decisions made, following the framework, create a clear
roadmap that will assist students in writing efective essays and research papers.
What remains outside of the framework are the students’ brainstorming ideas and
the work of creating sentences that relect each student’s own stance. hese ideas
eventually ill in the missing blanks of the framework, as I will show towards the
end of this paper (Section 4).
he suggested Lexical Cohesive Trio (LCT) includes crucial textual features
that create efective cohesion in students’ writing, as shown in the diagram in
Figure 1.
As the LCT framework in Figure 1 suggests, students should plan their essays
before embarking on writing them. Drawing one box for each paragraph, they
should list in detail and in advance the above-mentioned elements. he irst ele-
ment, which is reference, will show the referential connections the student plans
to make to other words in the text: they should explain every pronoun used in
the paragraph and its referent, even if this is performed at a preliminary level and
then enlarged upon ater writing the essay. Anaphoric and cataphoric connec-
tions should be made explicit here. Students should show which nouns are refer-
ring to which referents. Having done this, they should then select the appropriate

All rights reserved
transitional word to connect this paragraph to the next. At this point, the irst
paragraph is prepared for its satellite mission, which is to shed light upon the
following paragraphs.
Students who in this way determine transitional words and referential rela-
tions will be able to maintain logical connections. Such recurrent patterns play an
important role in determining the central ideas in a text and highlight the main
textual signals by re-emphasising the signals in their repetitive patterns. Phras-
al and sentential patterns may also be used to highlight the text’s encapsulated
Lexical-Cohesive
Trio (LCT)
1
Transitional signals
and referential
elements
a. transitional
signals
b. anaphora
c. cataphora
2
Patterns of lexical
repetition
a. simple lexical
repetition
b. complex lexical
repetition
c. phrasal repetition
3
Lexical Phrases
• Introducing
the work
• Referring to
the literature
• Being critical
• Describing
methods
• Reporting
results
• DISCUSSING
FINDINGS
Figure 1. he Lexical-Cohesive Trio (LCT) (Al Sharoui 2013)

All rights reserved
messages. Another use of such repetitive patterns would be to re-enforce certain
messages that are logically connected, starting from the irst paragraph. One may
also argue that these repetitive patterns in all their types further emphasise the
writer’s position on the chosen topic. Hoey argues that Halliday and Hasan did
not pay appropriate attention to lexical cohesion, which he deems to be extremely
important for textual cohesion. What Halliday and Hasan emphasized in their
Cohesion in English was that cohesion represents a semantic unity that relies pri-
marily upon micro-cohesive devices. Hoey extends the concept to include pat-
terns of lexical repetition that incorporate encapsulated ideas relecting the text’s
main message, as manifested in its so-called “central sentences” (Hoey 1995:113).
hese central sentences are primarily identiied by investigating repetitive lexical
patterns.
Having combined these two important elements, reference and lexical pat-
terning, the students may now choose the most appropriate lexical phrases to
speciically connect the paragraph in question to other paragraphs. In the present
study, the lexical phrases are taken from the Manchester Academic Phrase Bank
(see Appendix 3). Certainly, these are not the only lexical phrases that can be
used in academic writing; however (according to the compilers), their phrases are
based on a large body of academic corpora. My argument here is that establishing
this third element, lexical phrases, can only be done as the result of determining
references and lexical cohesion. his particular structural low paves the way for
the conluence of ideas in an organised and logical manner.
he aim of this framework is not to discount grammar, or methods of writ-
ing based on cause-and-efect, comparison-and-contrast, etc.; on the contrary, I
asked my students to select the appropriate syntactic structures and writing meth-
ods in their post-framework essays. My idea was to help them realise that there is
a cognitive process that helps them determine their lexical and cohesive choices. I
therefore tried to make my students bring this process to the surface by applying
it consciously on their essays. Teaching textual awareness in this manner aids stu-
dents in selecting, basing themselves on the corpora, the right transitional signals
and lexical phrases. his saves considerable time for non-native students, time
that otherwise (if such elements are taught separately) would be wasted in hunt-
ing for the appropriate reference words, transitional signals, and lexical phrases.
Once the students become familiar with the framework, they become more con-
scious of their writing, and know how to build lexical and textual cohesion in ad-
vance. I do not claim, however, that this framework is the ultimate in maintaining
cohesion and, therefore, establishing coherence in text. he main idea here is to
equip non-native students with the ability to design an efective framework to
serve as a road-map for their essay or research paper; in this respect, the frame-
work yields efective results right from the beginning of the writing process. I am

All rights reserved
a keen advocate of the conscious teaching of linguistic theory in the EFL (English
as a Foreign Language) classroom, and I do think that using the results of studies
in corpus linguistics when teaching writing to non-native students of English can
be useful indeed.
3.1 Results
I asked 30 GUST students to write two essays and a framework based on lexical
and textual cohesion, which was a new challenge for them. Ater applying the
framework, they felt more conident, especially since ater using the proper cohe-
sive devices, their ideas were more logically connected by the proper transitional
signals (as per Appendix 2) and the appropriate academic phrases, based upon a
data bank of attested corpora.
he next sections contain samples of my students’ pre-framework outlines
and their pre- and post-framework writing; irst, I present a sample showing the
various steps involved in applying the LCT framework (Section 3.2). Next, two
versions of a student’s essay essay are presented and compared: one pre-, the other
post-framework (‘Sample 1’; Section 3.2.1). Finally, Section 3.2.2 comprises an-
other student’s essay (‘Sample 2’) on the same topic; this time, I will only present
the post-framework version in its entirety and discuss (in Section 3.2.3) the sig-
niicant points where the lexical trio has made its impact felt.
3.2 Applying the LCT framework: Outlining paragraphs
(Al Sharoui 2013)
Paragraph 1
Reference: (Anaphora) life = it, technology = applied knowledge.
Repetition: (simple) technology, life, live, physical. (Complex) helpful and harmful =
advantages and disadvantages.
Lexical Phrases:
– he changes experienced by technologies over the past decade remain unprecedented.
– One question that needs to be asked, however, is whether we can imagine our lives
without technology?
– his paper will give an account of technology’s advantages and disadvantages to society.

All rights reserved
Paragraph 2
Reference: (Anaphora) Internet= which, technologies = it.
Repetition: (simple) technology, computers, modern societies, we can. (Complex) Advan-
tages=beneicial, harmful=con.
Lexical Phrases:
– here is a large volume of published studies describing the role of technology and its
impact on the public.
– It is becoming increasingly diicult to ignore the fact that technology is taking over our
lives.
Paragraph 3
Reference: (Anaphora) it= the situation, people=who.
Repetition: (simple) we, technology, fossil fuels, production of energy, gasoline, people,
(complex) endangers environment=pollution.
Lexical Phrase:
– Over the past century there has been a dramatic increase in technological inventions.
Paragraph 4
Reference: (Anaphora) x-rays= their, aspirin=it.
Repetition: (simple) technological/technology, outweigh, risks. (Complex) seen = perceived.
Lexical Phrase:
– Recently, researchers have shown an increased interest in technological creation.
– One observer has already drawn attention to the paradox in technological develop-
ments.
Paragraph 5
Reference: (Cataphora) some=foods, (Anaphora) that/they/these=un-organic foods.
Repetition: (simple) technological/technology, modiied foods, chemically modiied.
(Complex) un-organic foods = man made goods. Chemically modiied=un-organic.
Lexical Phrases:
– Debate continues about the best strategies for the management of mass produced
foods.
– However, far too little attention has been paid to the unhealthiness of their consump-
tion.

All rights reserved
Paragraph 6
Reference: (Anaphora) it = technology, (Exophora) us = readers/people.
Repetition: (simple) technologies/ technology/technological. (Complex) beneits of tech-
nology that are paired with risks = technology has its ups and downs.
Lexical Phrases:
– he aim of this paper is to determine the numerous beneits of technology that are
paired with risks…
– he aim of this study was to evaluate and validate the fact that technology has its ups
and downs.
3.2.1 Sample 1: Two versions of an essay compared
Here are the initial paragraphs of the two versions in question, pre- and post-
framework; irst, they are presented, then compared.
First paragraph of the pre-framework essay:
Writing about technology is like writing about life. his is not an implication
that without technology people are lifeless; rather, technology has a broad spec-
trum to it as life does. Can you imagine your life without technology? Well, we
can deinitely “imagine” it, but surely we would rather not be living without it.
Some say they would rather die than to live without technology, others would
disagree and say they would live the same way people lived centuries ago. Some
would not mind the old lifestyle of physical hard work. Before the technologies
were created – lifestyles were mostly based on physical work more than mental
and scientiic work. Now before we start, what exactly is technology? According
to dictionary.com, it is “the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation
and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the envi-
ronment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied
science, and pure science.” Technology can vary from a battery piece to a rocket
ship. Technology is a double-edged sword that can be both helpful and harmful,
the wiser we use it the better our world will be. (190 words)
First paragraph of the post-framework essay:
he changes experienced by technologies over the past decade remain unprec-
edented. Writing about technology is like writing about life. his is not an
implication that without technology, people are lifeless, rather, technology has a
broad spectrum to it as life does. One question that needs to be asked, however,
is whether we can imagine our lives without technology? Well, we can deinitely
“imagine” it, but surely we would rather not be living without it. Some say they
would rather die than to live without technology, others would disagree and say
they would live the same way people lived centuries ago. Some would not mind

All rights reserved
the old lifestyle of physical hard work. Before the technologies were created – life-
styles were mostly based on physical work more than mental and scientiic work.
Now before we start, what exactly is technology? According to dictionary.com,
it is “the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical
means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing
upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure
science.” Technology can vary from a battery piece to a rocket ship. Technology
is a double-edged sword that can be both helpful and harmful, the wiser we use
it the better our world will be. his essay will give an account of technology’s
advantages and disadvantages on society. (224 words)
Comparing the pre-framework essay with the post-framework essay reveals an
abundance of repetition, transitional signals, and lexical phrases in the second
version. he author’s conscious application of the main three textual elements
has constructively contributed to improving the quality of the essay. In particular,
when one compares the irst paragraphs of the two versions, one notices import-
ant diferences in terms of rhetorical structure, style, and the cohesive connec-
tions between phrases and sentences, which, according to numerous linguistic
studies (especially Halliday & Hasan’s Cohesion in English and Hoey’s Patterns of
Lexis in Text) strengthen cohesion in text. Indeed, such cohesive devices contrib-
ute signiicantly to building up proper rhetorical structures in text.
he post-framework essay’s introductory phrase, which is taken from the
corpora data bank, contains a strong thesis statement that provides a clear path
for the writer’s ideas. his phrase governs the conluence of thoughts that were
confusedly linked in the pre-framework version. he statement “Writing about
technology is like writing about life” has become part of the change that technology
has precipitated instead of being used loosely as in the irst essay.
Posing the following question further strengthens the student’s thesis:
One question that needs to be asked, however, is: can we imagine our lives with-
out technology?
Here, the student nicely connects the phrase taken from the corpora data bank
and creates a question that is consistent with her thesis, a step that was not clear in
the irst essay. Posing this question further places the student on the correct path
of argumentatively explaining her stance on technology. he inal sentence links
the irst paragraph to the rest of the essay in a logical manner, showing technolo-
gy’s advantages and disadvantages: “his essay will give an account of technology’s
advantages and disadvantages on society”.
Comparing the last sentence of the irst paragraph in the irst version, “Tech-
nology is a double-edged sword that can be both helpful and harmful, the wiser we

All rights reserved
use it the better our world will be”, with that of the second version also reveals that
the link between the irst paragraph and the rest of the essay was not clear in the
pre-framework version. he quoted sentence could have been used to conclude
the essay instead of beginning it, but using this lexical phrase in the irst para-
graph of the post-framework essay is deinitely a better choice for connecting the
irst paragraph with the rest of the essay. his conluence of ideas would not have
been possible without using the suggested framework, which has thus helped to
substantially improve the essay, whose irst version lacked this cohesion.
3.2.2 Sample 2: A post-framework essay
What follows is another student’s post-framework essay.
Does Technology Lead us to Happiness or Misery?
1. Technology is the mean of development through which human civilization
has risen from in the past few years. In life, people are more likely aware of
the fact that each natural entity in life has its goodness and badness to all
humanity; however, what would happen if the developments in human race
were caused by a mean made by men themselves? It is becoming increas-
ingly diicult to ignore the consequences of technology. herefore, people
started questioning whether technology is bringing about hindrance and
harm to humankind. hen, we come about to ask, how does technology
control our life and lead us to happiness or misery? Questions have been
raised about the safety of prolonged use of technology. herefore, this essay
will mainly focus on the negative and positive consequences of technology.
2. One question that needs to be asked, however, is whether there are some
arguments that prove the fact that technology leads us towards creating a
world of mess. Health risks that are resulted from technology are the main
concern in the irst argument. What are the health problems caused by tech-
nology, and how serious they are? For instance, mobiles have bad efects on
us as consumers of electronic devices; it has electronic signals that harm the
ears. Studies have shown that long duration of mobile phones damage the
internal function of ears. For that reason, doctors advise people to reduce
the duration of long calls as kind of recommendation.
3. Second, the reality of people, consuming technology, drives them to lose the
advantage of living in an exquisite social life and environment. Perhaps the
most serious disadvantage of technology is its outcome in the social life. Liv-
ing away from people and isolating ourselves along with electronic devices
is a problem that I am sure most of us sufer from in this new digital world.
he users of technology complain of these problems, and even those who are
surrounding these consumers are complaining as well. Some families are no
longer powerful or strong to stand up against the bad results of technology.

All rights reserved
For instance, an adolescent tends to text messages to his mother, brother
or any of his family members for the sake of asking them about his needs
without paying the efort of interacting with them face to face. As a result,
some people lost their ability in communicating with others, or in other
words, they ended up lacking self-conidence and self-esteem in speaking to
someone directly.
4. On the other hand, there are some arguments that conirm the reality that
technology guides our world towards great success and development. Sur-
prisingly, technology was found to complete a great role in the development
of human knowledge in numerous ields in life, mainly on science and edu-
cation. In the scientiic ield, scientists are no longer worried about attend-
ing international conferences, which are arranged in far distance countries
such as USA. Moreover, they are able to read and search on diferent topics
in the world around them, or they can essentially focus on enhancing their
knowledge regarding their specialties. he new devices such as BlackBerry,
IPhone, IPad, laptops, computers, and other electronic devices allow stu-
dents to email their professors, arrange appointments, answer the assign-
ments, and check out their grades in all the classes. Furthermore, students
can complete their studies through joining trusted Universities, which ofer
the program of online classes. hrough online lectures, students are able to
see and talk to their tutors through diferent devices mainly found because
of the development in technology.
5. In general, therefore, it seems that technology is guiding us towards aware-
ness; therefore, as consumers, we are able to see and feel all the current
situations in the world around us. In fact, it shapes them to be so real that
a person would feel being there experiencing personally all the events, as if
he is a native in these countries. Not only does technology help in education
and science, but it plays also a great role in sport and politics. People are get-
ting beneit from the development in human race through technology. hey
can watch a football match, which is held in Spain between their favourite
football teams, such as Real Madrid and Barcelona without paying the
efort of booking a ticket to travel there. he new electronic devices have
shortened the distances between one country and another. For instance,
in our days, people know almost everything about the countries, which are
near or far to them. hanks to technology, we now know more about the
various culture and tradition. Indeed, even the political problems are pre-
sented to us clearly through news, TV interviews, Twitter, Facebook, etc. …
6. To sum up, technology has a major inluence on our lives. However, it has its
own advantages and disadvantages as everything in the world. We cannot
deny the huge development that was caused by technology. It improved our
lives in dealing with diferent ields that in the end made our life to be an

All rights reserved
easier one. Yet, it has few disadvantages that cause harm to the health of
human being as well as his social life. his essay has given an account of the
advantages and disadvantages of the widespread use of technology.
his student used a coherent framework that shows logical and cohesive connec-
tions in her essay. here is an extensive use of contrastive relations, which relects
the contrastive nature of the entire essay. Repetition is established to relect the
comparative and contrastive stance of the paper. he student repeats words such
as technology, users, consumers, family, professors, and tutors to consolidate the
contrastive ideas of her essay. Adopting such a stance in the paper leads the stu-
dent to choose phrases that complement one another over the course of the essay.
he next section contains a more in-depth analysis of this essay in light of the
Lexical Cohesive Trio framework.
3.2.3 Analysis of Sample 2 in terms of the LCT
he conscious use of repetitive lexical elements increased this student’s ability to
connect her paragraphs cogently. She used lexical elements to support her thesis,
using the compare-and-contrast writing method. hus, this sample illustrates a
case in which awareness of lexical cohesion and using proper lexical phraseology
can lead to using proper stylistic and rhetorical devices. he student connects
the irst and second paragraphs using a question at the beginning of the second
paragraph to engage her readers in understanding the types of advantages and
disadvantages of technology that she discusses in her essay. Her third paragraph
begins with this sentence, “Second, the reality of people, consuming technology,
drives them to lose the advantage of living in an exquisite social life and environ-
ment”, and the paragraph ends with “As a result, some people lost their ability in
communicating with others, or, in other words, they ended up lacking self-coni-
dence and self-esteem in speaking to someone directly.” hese two sentences clearly
connect the present paragraph to the previous and following paragraphs, which
indicates that using the lexical trio helps the student achieve her goal easily and
efectively. In the fourth paragraph, the student uses a contrastive device, on the
other hand, to signal a contrastive idea, which harmoniously connects with the
previous paragraphs. She follows up with an efective lexical phrase taken from
the corpora to buttress this contrastive efect:
On the other hand, there are some arguments that conirm the reality that tech-
nology guides our world towards great success and development.
Surprisingly, technology was found to complete a great role in the development
of human knowledge in numerous ields in life, mainly on science and education.

All rights reserved
he student chooses to show her readers an unexpected outcome, which (in ac-
cordance with what is found in the corpora), should begin with a phrase that
starts with surprisingly, following the formula,
Surprisingly, X was found to …
and then she has illed in the blank with:
complete a great role in the development of human knowledge in numerous
ields in life, mainly on science and education.
his example clearly conirms the position stated at the beginning of the present
article that students can, in fact, choose appropriate lexical phrases and ill in the
blanks to create sentences that are consistent with their stances.
his student’s inal lexical phrase, which is again taken from the corpora,
wraps up the entire essay into a complete whole:
his essay has given an account of the advantages and disadvantages of the
widespread use of technology.
4. Conclusion
Having analysed 30 pre-framework and 30 post-LCT framework essays, I have
obtained the following results (see Figures 2 and 3).
As Figures 2 and 3 clearly show, using the LCT framework substantially in-
creased textual and lexical cohesion at all three levels: transitionally, lexically, and
rhetorically. Ater applying this framework, my students became more aware of
what proper academic writing means and how one can organise one’s ideas in an
academically acceptable manner. Students understand that they should pay more
attention to lexical patterning and the manner in which patterns are repeated and
connected in academic discourse.
he igures all show signiicant improvement in and abundance of transition-
al signals, lexical repetition, and lexical phrases, respectively. Appendix 1 shows a
numerical breakdown: transitional signals were used 417 times before using the
framework and 721 times ater using the framework; lexical repetitions were used
420 times before using the framework and 872 times ater using the framework;
inally, lexical phrases were used 447 times before using the framework and 1079
times ater using the framework. In particular, the inal result, 1079, showing an
increase in the number of lexical phrase occurrences in all the collected samples
of student essays, constitutes an important guarantor of an improved logical and
rhetorical structure. It is this abundance of lexical phrases, occurring naturally in

All rights reserved
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1
0
2 3 6 8
7 9
4 5 11
10 12 20 25
21 24
22 23
16 18
17 19
14 15 30
26 28
27 29
13
Sample Number TRANSITIONAL SIGNALS - before TRANSITIONAL SIGNALS - after
LEXICAL REPETITION - before LEXICAL REPETITION - after LEXICAL PHRASES - before
Figure 2. LCT distribution over 30 samples
Frequency of Lexical Phrases
Lexical phrases before
using LCT
Lexical phrases after
using LCT
Figure 3. Frequency of lexical phrases over 30 samples

All rights reserved
academic articles, which should be emphasised in the conscious teaching of the
Lexical Cohesive Trio.
he results were further analysed in light of the t-test, using SPSS. My aim
was to statistically ensure the validity of my hypothesis, namely, that the LCT is
an eicient framework for teaching academic writing.
Based on the tables in Figures 2 and 3, three pairwise t-tests on the data have
been conducted to examine whether there are signiicant changes in the two ver-
sions, before and ater the use of the LCT. A pairwise t-test conirmed that sig-
niicantly more transitional signals were produced ater the framework was used:
t(1,29) = –4.938 with a p-value < 0.001. Similarly, a pairwise t-test conirmed
that signiicantly more lexical repetitions were produced ater the framework was
used: t(1,29) = –5.218 with a p-value < 0.001. Finally, a pairwise t-test conirmed
that more lexical repetitions were produced signiicantly ater the framework was
used: t(1,29) = –10.672 with a p-value < 0.001. hese tests present strong evidence
in favour of using the LCT, and conirm the signiicant inding that an increase in
students’ use of cohesive devices, lexical repetitions, and lexical phrases enhances
their ability to write coherent essays. (See also Appendix 2 & 3.)
5. Future research
Another important element that I have not included in my suggested framework
for academic writing is the matter of academic collocations. I could not ind a
comprehensive list of academic collocations, based on corpora, that I could use in
my study. If in the future, a list of academic collocations were to be compiled and
made available, I would deinitely incorporate it into my framework to further
strengthen it; this new dimension will then be incorporated in my future studies
on LCT.
It is my hope that studies in corpus analysis will continue to pay special at-
tention to the important research gap identiied in the present article, in order to
further improve the current seminal framework for teaching academic writing.
What I have proposed in the present paper is a framework establishing the start-
ing point of a lexical road-map that can further help students understand certain
text-pragmatic functions. he Lexical Cohesive Trio framework can pave the way
towards understanding pragmatic functions in texts, which will continue to be
my target of investigation. I hope other researchers will join me in pursuing this
area of exploration.

All rights reserved
6. Summary
In this paper, I have envisaged a new framework for writing academic essays and,
by extension, research papers. In so doing, I have shown that by using a text’s
three main cohesive elements: anaphora and cataphora, transitional signals, and
lexical phrases, one can produce a solid framework for writing academic texts.
In this way, modern corpora studies can help immensely towards improving
non-native students’ academic writing skills. Previous studies have sporadically
used the above-mentioned elements; however, no study, to my knowledge, has
produced a framework that comprises all three elements together. his combina-
tion of textual and lexical elements has been shown to improve the academic writ-
ing skills of non-native users of English. Modern English curricula for academic
writing should pay special attention to the indispensable importance of lexical
devices, such as lexical repetitions, lexical patterning, and lexical phrases as the
main building blocks of any academic essay. Neglecting the role of the important
linguistic position of lexis in text results in impressionistic, rather than objective
approaches to academic writing – approaches that waste the time and eforts of
teachers and students alike. At the tertiary level of education, students are expect-
ed to write in accordance with speciic academic standards that require time and
efort. Non-native students of English neither need intuitive native approaches
to good academic writing, nor do they need impressionistic and idiosyncratic
approaches to the same. What they need is a clear road-map that they can al-
ways depend on when creating efective academic essays and research papers, so
that they may stop being criticized that “Your writing does not sound like English”.
“Sounding English” means that lexical blocks of academic writing are created in a
certain manner that must be consciously taught to students. Waiting for students
to igure out what these building blocks are, and how they work, would take years;
and even then students will sometimes not be able to recognise them. Teaching
lexical awareness at all its levels is the correct irst step on the long path of teach-
ing academic writing in institutions of tertiary education.
References
Al Sharoui, Hussain. 2013. “Academic Writing Wizard for Teaching Academic Writing Using
Lexical Cohesive Trio.” EDULEARN Proceedings, 1780–1787.
Bahns, Jens, Hartmut Burmeister, and homas Vogel. 1986. “he Pragmatics of Formulas in L2
Learner Speech: Use and Development.” Journal of Pragmatics 10: 693–723.
DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(86)90147-5

All rights reserved
Biber, Douglas, and Federica Barbieri. 2007. “Lexical Bundles in University Spoken and Writ-
ten Registers.” In A Little Bit about Analysing and Teaching Lexical Bundles in Academic
Lectures, ed. by E. Neely and V. Cortes. English for Speciic Purposes 26: 263–286.
Boers, Frank, Hartmut Burmeister, and homas Vogel. 2006. “Formulaic Sequences and Per-
ceived Oral Proiciency: Putting a Lexical Approach to the Test.” Language Teaching Re-
search 3: 245–261. DOI: 10.1191/1362168806lr195oa
Carter, Ronald, and Michael McCarthy (eds). 1988. Vocabulary and Language Teaching.
London: Longman.
Cohen, Andrew D., and Jonathan Fine. 1978. Reading History in English: Discourse Analysis and
the Experience of Native and Non-native Readers (Working Papers on Bilingualism No. 16).
Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Modern Language Centre.
Crossley, Scott, and homas Lee Salsbury. 2011. “he Development of Lexical Bundle Accuracy
and Production in English Second Language Speakers.” IRAL – International Review of
Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 49(1): 1–26. DOI: 10.1515/iral.2011.001
Esther, Geva. 1992. “he Role of Conjunctions in L2 Text Comprehension.” TESOL Quarterly
26 (4): 740–745.
Halliday, Michael, and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English (1st ed.). London: Longman.
Hoey, Michael. 1995. Patterns of Lexis in Text (1st ed.). London: Oxford University Press.
Hoey, Michael. 2005. Lexical Priming: A New heory of Words and Language. London:
Routledge.
Kafes, Huseyin. 2012. “Lexical Cohesion: An Issue Only in the Foreign Language?” English
Language Teaching (Canada) 5 (3): 83–91.
Kurumada, Chigusa. 2009. “he Acquisition and Development of the Topic Marker wa in L1
Japanese: he Role of NP-wa? in Child-mother Interaction.” In Formulaic Language, ed.
by Roberta Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali, and Kathleen M. Wheatley, 347–
374. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.83.06kur
Ranjbar, Nosrat, Abdolreza Pashakh, and Bahman Gorjian. 2012. “he Efect of Lexical Bundles
on Iranian EFL Learners’ Linguistic Production Fluency.” International Education Stud-
ies 5 (4): 243–251. Retrieved from http://library.gust.edu.kw:2048/docview/1034108231?
accountid=29259. DOI: 10.5539/ies.v5n4p243
hompson, Geof. 2004. Introducing Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
Witte, Stephen P., and Lester Faigley. 1981. “Coherence, Cohesion, and Writing Quality.” Col-
lege Composition and Communication 32 (2): 189–204. DOI: 10.2307/356693
Winter, Eugene O. 1979. “Replacement as a Fundamental Function of the Sentence in Context.”
Forum Linguisticum 4 (2): 95–133.
Zhan, Lili. 2012. “Analysis of Lexical Repetition-taking a News Discourse as an Example.” he-
ory and Practice in Language Studies 2 (10): 2160–2167. Retrieved from http://library.gust.
edu.kw:2048/docview/1330861573?accountid=2

All rights reserved
Appendix 1
Breakdown of LCT elements across all samples before and ater using the framework
(Al Sharoui 2013)
Sample
number
Transitional
signals
before
framework
Transitional
signals
ater
framework
Lexical
repetition
before
framework
Lexical
repetition
ater
framework
Lexical
phrases
before
framework
Lexical
phrases
ater
framework
Sample 1 12 52 25 74 7 30
Sample 2 22 56 8 30 13 26
Sample 3 14 36 16 28 16 30
Sample 4 21 34 9 48 10 28
Sample 5 17 32 12 42 17 46
Sample 6 25 34 22 68 8 22
Sample 7 3 26 12 60 19 55
Sample 8 7 3 25 34 7 32
Sample 9 11 36 8 37 13 26
Sample 10 8 24 13 21 16 30
Sample 11 10 31 9 27 10 30
Sample 12 8 11 12 28 17 46
Sample 13 12 19 18 15 8 22
Sample 14 14 23 12 9 19 54
Sample 15 2 18 21 22 7 30
Sample 16 6 16 8 28 13 62
Sample 17 9 12 16 29 26 30
Sample 18 4 22 9 27 10 28
Sample 19 12 26 16 11 17 46
Sample 20 18 21 20 28 8 27
Sample 21 33 21 12 13 22 54
Sample 22 12 17 21 17 7 30
Sample 23 34 21 8 19 13 28
Sample 24 27 12 16 8 16 43
Sample 25 21 26 9 14 10 28
Sample 26 11 24 12 17 17 46
Sample 27 16 22 13 22 26 34
Sample 28 18 19 12 25 19 54
Sample 29 7 10 19 34 22 30
Sample 30 3 17 7 37 34 32
TOTALS 417 721 420 872 447 1079

All rights reserved
Appendix 2
Frequency of transitional signals before and ater using the framework
Use of Transitional Signals – Frequency
Transitional
signals before
using LCT
Transitional
signals
after using LCT
Appendix 3
Frequency of repetitive lexical elements before and ater using the framework
Use of Lexical Repetition – Frequency
Lexical
repetition
before using the
framework
Lexical repetition
after using the
framework
Academic phrases, based on the Manchester Academic Phrases Bank, were retrieved from:
http://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/.

All rights reserved
About the author
Hussain Al Sharoui is an assistant professor of applied linguistics at Gulf University for Sci-
ence and Technology, State of Kuwait. He has been attached to the English Department since its
inception. He also taught at Bucharest University and Spiru Haret University in Romania. He
obtained his M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Bucharest. Al Sharoui’s research interests
are in the areas of applied linguistics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, communication, and lan-
guage teaching. His recent publications include ‘Ideological Manipulation in Mobilising Arabic
Political Editorials’ (Pragmatics & Society 2:1, 2011:87–109); ‘Using a Near-Statistical Depen-
dency Approach in Testing Non-Native Speakers’ Ability to Recover English Conversational
Implicatures’ (RASK: International Journal of Language and Communication, 34, 2011:23–47);
and ‘he Impact of English Language and International Media as Agents of Cultural Global-
ization on Identity Formation in Kuwait’ (Globalisation, Societies, Education, 13:4, 2014:1–22).
Author’s address
Hussain Al Sharoui
Gulf University for Science and Technology
P.O. Box 7207
Hawally 32093, Kuwait
alsharouih@gust.edu.kw, shurooi@yahoo.com

A Novel Framework For Teaching Academic Writing

More Related Content

Similar to A Novel Framework For Teaching Academic Writing

More from Tracy Hill

Recently uploaded

A Novel Framework For Teaching Academic Writing