Discourse and Interaction 1. Brno Seminar on Linguistic Studies in English: Proceedings 2005.

Masaryk
University in Brno, 2005.

LINKING DEVICES IN ENGLISH ACADEMIC PROSE
Irena Hlkov


Abstract
This paper presents a rough outline of a future PhD thesis which analyses linking devices
viewed as significant means of cohesion in English academic prose. It introduces different
terminology, semantic categories and other features of linking devices such as forms in which
they are used, frequency of occurrence, possible cooccurrence, and finally positions in a
sentence and above all within a text as a whole.
As for the corpus of texts to be analysed, it will first include various linguistic articles of
similar length, where the distribution of individual semantic groups will be investigated. After
arriving at particular results based on this limited research, the corpus will be enlarged;
besides the linguistic texts it will also comprise articles from various fields of the humanities
such as history, art history and literature.
The research will mainly focus on concessive linking devices regarded as the most complex
of all semantic relations that may hold between parts of a discourse (Kortmann 1991: 161).

1 Terminology
To begin with, it should be clarified what is meant by the term linking devices in this
paper.
As regards terminology, it varies greatly according to which textbook is used and in no
case is it consistent. Thus, we can come across the following terms, all of which refer to the
same linguistic phenomenon: logical connectors (in particular conjunctive adverbials)
terms used by Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman in The Grammar Book (1999); according to
Huddleston and Pullum (2002) these are connective adverbs a label occurring in The
Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Further terms representing the linking devices
in question are as follows: discourse markers (Parrot, M. 2001. Grammar for English
Language Teachers and Swan, M. 1996. Practical English Usage); conjunctive expressions
(namely conjunctive adjuncts) terms applied in Cohesion in English (1976) by Halliday
and Hasan; comment adverbs and viewpoint adverbs (Hewings, M. 2002. Advanced
Grammar in Use); linking adverbials and stance adverbials (Biber, D. et al. 1999. Longman
Grammar of Spoken and Written English) and finally conjuncts and disjuncts two of four
grammatical functions (the other two being adjuncts and subjuncts) distinguished by
Greenbaum and Quirk in A Students Grammar of the English Language (1990).
COHESIVE DEVICES IN ENGLISH ACADEMIC PROSE

I have decided to label the group of expressions I will investigate linking devices since this
is a complex term which does not limit the field of my interest. Let me also quote at this stage
a few lines from two different sources illustrating the overlap between different kinds of
connective elements:
It should also be borne in mind that there are many ways of relating one clause to
another besides the use of a connective adjunct. Coordinators are one such device;
syntactically, these have distinctive properties that lead us to analyse them differently from
connective adjuncts. Nevertheless, the division between coordinators and connective adjuncts
is not entirely clear-cut, and items such as yet and so have some uses where they are clearly
connective adjuncts, others where they are very similar to coordinators (Huddleston &
Pullum 2002: 777) .
We have described linking adverbials as having a primary function of marking the
relationship between two units of discourse. It is important to note, however, that linking
adverbials can have functions that overlap with those of circumstance and stance adverbials
(Biber et al. 1999: 879).
2 Background
2.1 Cohesive means
Generally speaking, linking devices can be viewed as significant means of cohesion in
English, no matter whether it is written or spoken, formal or informal; however, it is
particularly the register of academic prose where linking devices play a key role as cohesive
means. This results from the fact that the crucial function of academic prose is referential,
which involves the following features: it conveys information, presents, supports arguments
and explains facts and the various relations between them. In order to fulfil this function
successfully scientific prose style in general requires a high level of explicitness, clear logical
organisation and an avoidance of ambiguity. To achieve all these criteria this register uses
appropriate terminology (every branch of science has its own technical terms), formal
language, complete sentences, relative clauses, the passive voice and other devices among
which linking devices are definitely worth emphasising. They contribute greatly to a better
understanding of a text as a whole since all its parts are logically connected with each other.
Hence, they function as an effective means of cohesion. In some texts, especially as
arguments are concluded, each of a series of sentences will begin with a linking adverbial
47
Irena Hlkov

(Biber et al. 1999: 880). Let me illustrate this quote with three extracts chosen at random from
two different linguistics books:
More specifically, though, it seems most natural to apply it to interaction which is
characterized by informality, spontaneity and egalitarian relationships between the
participants (if your boss asks you to come and have a conversation about your
punctuality, you tend to suspect euphemism, or irony). Certainly, for me as an English-
speaker it seems more natural to use the word conversation in connection with chat
or gossip than for a seminar or a medical consultation. Each of these has features of
conversation, but intuitively I feel it is not the prototypical case.
(Cameron, D. 2001: 10)

Arguably, this is less true of written discourse. Anyone who has been educated in a
highly literate society will have developed not only the ability to read and write, but
also some ability to think analytically about written texts. For instance, many school
students have had some experience of learning how to do close reading of literary
texts: they have had their attention drawn to the structure of a poem or to the existence
of competing interpretations of its meaning. By contrast, it is much less likely that have
ever been taught to approach ordinary talk or any kind of spoken language in the
same systematic way. Similarly, most people
(Cameron, D. 2001: 8)

Typically, I have excluded the data that is less prototypical of the RA. Secondly, it is
easy to see that some fields are much less well represented than others; for example,
there is very little on disciplines such as economics and sociology. Third, I have not
thought it worthwhile to incorporate in Table 3 papers that have already been quite
extensively discussed for other purposes (Bazerman, 1984a; Huckin, 1987), although
relevant aspects of these fine studies will not be neglected. Finally, the listed papers
vary considerably in their analytic perspective.
(Swales, J .M. 2002: 133)

2.2 Features of linking devices
To introduce linking devices in more detail, the following aspects should be
mentioned:
- semantic roles
- frequency of occurrence and possible cooccurrence (either with each other, or with
other linkers such as coordinators and subordinators)
- forms in which they are used
- position in a sentence and within a text as a whole
Before discussing the semantic roles and frequency of occurrence of linking devices in
different parts of a text (these two features will compose the major part of my work), let me
briefly comment on the forms in which they are used and their position in a sentence.
Linking devices are realised not only by simple (e.g. next, though, yet) or compound
adverbs (compound adverbs ending in ly such as firstly, additionally, conversely, or other
48
COHESIVE DEVICES IN ENGLISH ACADEMIC PROSE

compound adverbs like furthermore, moreover, nevertheless), but also by prepositional
phrases (for instance on the contrary, in addition, in effect), nonfinite clauses (to sum up, to
put it briefly, looked at politically, and many others) and even finite clauses (that is, that is to
say, what is more); so it is clear that they take different forms. According to Biber et al., the
majority of linking devices in academic prose are formed by means of simple adverbs;
nevertheless, prepositional phrases are also relatively common in academic language and
occur to a much greater extent in this register than, for example, in conversation (Biber et al.
1999: 862).
The distribution of linking devices in terms of their syntactic functions, i.e. the
position(s) they take up in the sentence, is also worth mentioning. There are three main
positions: initial, medial and final, the first of which is the most common position for linking
devices not only within the register of academic prose, but also in conversation. Medial
position has the second highest proportion of occurrences in academic prose and final position
is rare, whereas in conversation it is the other way round, which means that final position is
second while medial position rarely occurs. Thus, according to Biber et al., initial position can
be regarded as the unmarked position for linking adverbials (ibid.: 891). In terms of a system
of punctuation, it is very common to find conjunctive adjuncts occurring in written English
following a colon or semicolon (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 232). The choice of position for a
linking element is usually influenced by its form and semantic category; for instance, long
adjuncts would not normally be used in medial position, whereas linking devices in the form
of simple or compound adverbs are acceptable in all three positions.
2.3 Semantic categories
With reference to the semantic roles, each of the linking devices can be put into a
semantic sub-category; these are usually labelled in the following way:
- contrast/ concession, i.e. items that either mark contrast between information in
different discourse units, or that signal concessive relations (in contrast/ by contrast, on the
contrary, conversely, on the one hand on the other hand; however, nevertheless,
nonetheless, though, yet, and many others)
- result/ inference: these linking devices draw our attention to results and conclusions
(for example, as a result, thus, hence, therefore, consequently, following from this, it follows
that, and others)
- ordering/ listing, further subdivided into enumeration, addition, and summation (such
as in the first place/ firstly, second/ secondly, to start with, to begin with; in addition/ to add/
49
Irena Hlkov

additionally, further, moreover; to sum up/ in sum, to conclude/ in conclusion, in short,
finally, eventually, briefly/ in brief/ to put it briefly, etc.) the presence of these connectives
contributes to a lucid stratification of information, providing readers with clear signs of where
they are in the text.
- apposition (in concrete terms elaboration and exemplification): these linking devices
are used to show that a particular unit is to be regarded either as restating/ reformulating
information mentioned earlier =>elaboration (which is to say, in other words, to put it
another way) or simply giving examples for better illustration of what is being discussed =>
exemplification (for example, for instance, namely, as an illustration, )
- transition: this semantic relation signals new information, usually another topic,
which may be connected only loosely, or even unconnected, e.g. incidentally, by the way, etc.
2.4 Frequency of occurrence
The frequency of occurrence of semantic categories is definitely worth investigating.
According to Biber et al. (1999: 880, 881) and their corpus findings, the most common
category of linking devices in academic prose is that of result/ inference. However, in my
view and on the grounds of my pilot research, it may be the category of contrast/ concession
that occurs with the highest frequency if not in an academic text as a whole, then at least in
certain parts of it. My two samples were the first few pages of two different linguistics books:
sample I: Greenbaum, S. and R. Quirk. 1990: Chapter 1. A Students Grammar of the English
Language. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. and sample II: Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan.
1989: Foreword. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic
Perspective. Oxford: OUP; the preliminary results are as follows:
Out of total number of 41 linking devices in sample I there were 18 linking devices
expressing concession/ contrast and only 6 signalling result/ inference. As regards sample II
the total number of linking devices was 53; out of this total there were 19 concessive/
contrastive linking devices and none (0) which would represent the category of result/
inference. The rest were linking devices belonging to other semantic categories. As can be
noticed, in both cases instances of concession/ contrast highly outnumbered those of result/
inference. These tentative findings have led me to a possible focus of my future research: how
are individual semantic groups distributed in different parts of a text (at the beginning in the
middle at the end)?


50
COHESIVE DEVICES IN ENGLISH ACADEMIC PROSE

2.5 Corpus
The corpus of texts to be analysed would first include linguistics articles of similar
length. After arriving at particular results based on this limited research, I would gradually
work up to a larger corpus comprising besides the linguistics texts articles from various
fields of the humanities such as history, art history and literature.
3 Preliminary hypothesis
The preliminary hypothesis could be formulated in the following way: at the beginning
of academic texts the highest frequency of occurrence can be represented by the category of
concession/ contrast, as the author introduces different issues to be analysed later and it is
crucial to emphasize the contrastive/ concessive relationships between them. It should be
pointed out at this stage that the research will focus on the detailed analysis of concessive
linking devices regarded as the most complex of all semantic relations that may hold
between parts of a discourse (Kortmann 1991: 161). As for the final part of academic
articles, linking devices expressing result/ inference may appear to a larger extent (and so may
the group of summative linking devices); the category of result/ inference draws the readers
attention to results and conclusions which are expected to be emphasized when closing a topic
under discussion. Moreover, these linking devices also link the writers claim to supporting
facts. Summative linking devices contribute to a lucid stratification of information and they
clearly signal the end of the topic in question.
With reference to the middle part it is at present impossible to offer any kind of
hypothesis, as only elaborate research will show how the use of individual semantic
categories of linking devices may be influenced by the particular needs and preferences of the
author, or perhaps by the type of topic discussed.
4 Conclusion
To sum up, linking devices, in my view, serve to raise the standard of written as well
as spoken English and support the fluency and native-likeness of any verbal discourse. All
these aspects are very significant in academic environment, where English might be expected
to perform the role of lingua franca. My research will attempt to offer a complex and
thorough survey of linking devices functioning as cohesive means in English academic prose.
I also intend that it will serve as a material for educational purposes.

51
Irena Hlkov

References
Biber, D. et al. (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Essex: Pearson
Education Limited.
Cameron, D. (2001) Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage Publisher.
Celce-Murcia, M. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999) The Grammar Book. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Greenbaum, S. and Quirk, R. (1990) A Students Grammar of the English Language. Essex:
Pearson Education Limited.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English. Essex: Pearson Education
Limited.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1989) Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language
in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1990) Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Hewings, M. (2002) Advanced Grammar in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hornov, L. (2003) Referenn slovnk gramatickch termn. Olomouc: Univerzita
Palackho v Olomouci.
Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K. (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kortmann, B. (1991) Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English. Problems of Control and
Interpretation. London: Routledge.
Leech, G. and Svartvik, J . (1994) A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Longman.
Parrot, M. (2001) Grammar for English Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Quirk, R. et al. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London:
Longman.
Swales, J . M. (2002) English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Swan, M. (1996) Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Urbanov, L. and Oakland, A. (2002) vod do anglick stylistiky. Brno: Barrister & Principal.

52