1. DISCIPLINARY VARIATION IN THE USE OF LINKING ADVERBIALS Zaha Alonazi PhD Student At ALT Iowa State University

2. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY Terminology issues Previous Research on LAs The purpose of the current study Methodology and Results Pedagogical implications

3. WHAT IS LAS LAs are “important devices for creating textual cohesion”(Biber et al,1999, p.875). Linking adjuncts (Carter and Mcarthy; 2006) Transition marker (Hyland,2005) Adverbial connectors (Altenberg &Tapper, 1998) Linking adverbials (Biber et al., 1999).

4. SEMANTIC CATEGORIES Finally, lastly, in addition, first,second….etc Enumeration /Addition in summary, to sum up Summation that is, for example, for instance Apposition therefore, as a result Result/Inference to the contrary, anyway, though Contrast/concession by the way, incidentally. Transitions

5. LIT REVIEW (Altenberg & Tapper,1998;Heino,2010;Field &Yip,1992; Granger &Tyson, Hyland & Tse; 1996; Shaw,2009; Lei,2012). Native vs non native (Gorjian et.al, 2012; Luisa &Pastor, 2013).Native vs Non native Professionals: Biber et al (1999)more linking adverbials were used in conversation and academic prose than in fiction and news (Biber et al, 1999). Hyland (1998)higher density of linking adverbials in textbooks compared to research articles Hyland, 2005).more transitions were found in soft fields’ textbooks than their hard science counterparts Peacock (2010) linking adverbials are less frequently used in science; significant variations were detected among the four disciplines of science.

6. MOTIVATION OF THE STUDY Studies on disciplinary specific use of LAs are limited and are largely of generic nature with more quantitative orientation. Most studies on LAs disciplinary variation focused on the quantitative aspect. Specifity: “ that we communicate as members of social groups and that different groups use language to conduct their business, define their boundaries and manage their interactions in particular way”(pp. 7-8).

7. QUESTIONS OF THE STUDY How the use of linking adverbials differs in AL and Nursing research articles in terms of the frequency and taxonomy of adverbial connectors ? How do the linking adverbials function in Applied Linguistics and Nursing research articles?

8. THE CORPUS 80 Research Articles peer refereed journals with traditional sections. AL journals: TESOL Quarterly, Applied Linguistics, Language Learning and Technology, English for Academic Purposes Applied Nursing Research, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Journal of Clinical Nursing and Research in Nursing and Health. 2007, 2008,2009,2010,2011 Convert to texts using pdf in-built- text converter

9. AntConc software AntConc software (Anthony,2014)

10. RESULTS RESULTS: DISCIPLINARY VARIATION IN THE FREQUENCY OF SEMANTIC CATEGORIES ;

11. Chi-Square Tests ValuedfAsymptotic Significance (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 26.139 a 4.000 Likelihood Ratio 26.6684.000 Linear-by-Linear Association.4481.503 N of Valid Cases 5583 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 27.07.

12. Symmetric Measures ValueApproximate Significance Nominal by NominalPhi.068.000 Cramer's V.068.000 Contingency Coefficient.068.000 N of Valid Cases 5583

13. LAS IN BOTH CORPORA LAsApplied LinguisticsNursing Additives 70.1%29.9% Appositives 75.9%24.1% Contrast 69.7%30.3% Results 68.1%31.9% Summation 78.9%21.1%

14. ADDITIVES Additives in AL Corpus/ Per/10000 Additives in Nursing/ Per/10000 also 23.19Also26.49 as well 4.12in addition3.29 in addition 2.61as well3.12 finally 2.14first1.25 moreover 1.62finally0.71 first 1.59further more1.25 furthermore 0.64second0.67 similarly 1.19moreover0.67 second 0.96further0.58 likewise 0.55third0.40 And 0.43Similarly0.36

15. FUNCTIONS OF LAS 1. In addition, by selectively sampling stimuli, input to participants could be limited to items from the domain of interpersonal vocabulary. Furthermore, possible confounds such as the number of adjectives describing each noun in the sentence could be controlled, as well as the degree of evaluation and potency of the words.(AL) 2. The screen recording program Camtasia Recorder (2004) was used to capture participants’ moves through the activity. In addition, the whole group was observed by one of the authors. (AL)

16. 3) Education programs with a team of professional health care providers can improve glycemic control and the progression of long-term complications of patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition, telephone care is a strategy of extending diabetes management services into patients' homes. (Nursing)

17. ADDITIVES 1) And, further, Hyland (2005, p. 49) argues that………. 2) And, finally, a pedagogical question that has been raised by several researchers but has not been investigated is when learners should……… 3) And, moreover, he points out that he reported to the director of the division… 4) And, as mentioned earlier, recent researchers have extended study of narrative…. 5)And when ESL writers are required to write multi-draft compare-contrast, opinion, and

18. CONTRAST/ CONCESSION 1) Scarce, however, is research investigating, in a controlled fashion, the impact and interaction between such reader- based factors in L2 lexical inferencing and retention.(AL) 2). Clearly, however, this conjecture requires further substantiation. (AL) 3) It is noteworthy, however, that while reference ….. (AL) In LA: highlighting limitations of previous research

19. CONTRAST / CONCESSION Evidence that these activities effectively treat POI remains unconvincing. However, there is consensus other positive benefits occur for the postoperative patient to include reducing pulmonary complications. (Nursing).

20. SUMMATION Frequency rank of Summation linking adverbials in AL and Nursing Applied Linguistics Corpus Raw Frequency normalized Nursing Corpus Raw frequency Frequency per/10000 in sum 24 0.70Overall 200.9 in short 8 0.23in sum 0 to conclude 6 0.17To sum up 0 To summarize 5 0.14in short 0 to sum up 2 0.06to conclude 0 in conclusion 1 0.03to summarize 0 Overall 29 0.84in conclusion 0

21. SUMMATION In LA: signposts to draw readers’ attention to the important points Writers in Applied Linguistics presuppose that their readers may not be able to make such connection and hence utilize more summatives to insure their readers’ understanding.

22. SUMMATION Once again, as one can see in Fig. 2, although there were a few differences in extreme cases, overall the two criteria give the same picture in terms of rank orders. (Nursing)

23. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Unlike Biber et al (1999), the semantic function of contrast was more frequent in both corpora The use of cohesive devices including linking adverbials serves not only textual but more importantly interactional function (Hyland,2005)

24. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The effect of audience on the use of LAs. Informative vs Persuasive functions

25. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS Different sections of research papers can be used to demonstrate where and when linking adverbials can be used to solidify one’ argument Learners’ attention should be drawn to the needs of their readers and how linking adverbials can be utilized to address these needs. Comparing the use of linking adverbials in one specialty with other fields

26. Thanks For Listening Any Questions????

27. REFERENCES Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/ Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman. Carter, R.& M. McCarthy (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Field, Y., & Yip, L. M. O. (1992). A comparison of internal conjunctive cohesion in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English. RELC Journal, 23(1), 15-28. Granger, S., & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector Usage in the English Essay Writing of Native and Non- native EFL Speakers of English. World Englishes, 15(1), 19-29. Gorjian, B.,Pazhakh, A., &Nghizadeh, M., (2012). Comparative study of conjunctive adverbials (CAs) in native researchers (NRs) and nonnative researchers (NNRs) experimental articles. Asian Social Science,1(2). Halliday, M & Hasan, R. (1976).Cohesion in English. London: Longman Heino, P. (2010). Adverbial Connectors in Advanced EFL Learners’ and Native Speakers’ Student Writing. Bachelor degree project, English, Stockholms University. Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse: Journal of Pragmatics,30, 437-55. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.

28. Luisa, M & Pastor, C., (2013). A contrastive study of the variation of sentence connectors in academic English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,12,192,202. Peacock, M., (2010). Linking adverbials in research articles across eight disciplines. Iberica, 20,9-34.