Sentence Openers in Academic Writing: A Comparison between Seminar Texts and Students’ Reflective Writing Papers

Abstract

Please fill up the following information accurately. (Please use Times New Roman, 12 pt.
Sentence Openers in Academic Writing: A Comparison between Seminar Texts and Students’ Reflective Writing Papers
Language used to report research findings and put forward arguments is at the heart of effective communication with readers. To this end, scholars use a variety of stylistic features. One of these is variety in language, which includes structures, lexis, and organization markers.  Although much research has been conducted on these aspects, a particular feature has received limited interest from researchers: sentence openers, a strategic use of which helps authors develop an individual style, and avoid stagnant prose. This helps them maintain readers’ interest while communicating scientific knowledge. Due to the importance of sentence openers in scientific prose, university students should have their awareness raised about this aspect of academic writing. This requires identification of commonly occurring sentence openers in the texts they study. It is also useful to identify student tendencies regarding sentence openers and their views about how to make their writing interesting. Prompted by these necessities, this research investigated a 10,949 running-word corpus compiled from professionally-written texts used in a first-year writing course, as well as a 42,070 running-word student corpus compiled from the reflective writing papers of 35 first-year students. Data on student perceptions were collected using a discourse completion task and a survey. Results showed that the two most frequent sentence openers in both corpora were subject-verb and transition markers. However, the latter were used by the students with significantly higher frequency than they were by the professional writers. Data also revealed that the students lack awareness of sentence openers as a feature for making writing more interesting. Students further reported an inability to use a wide range of sentence openers in their writing. Results are discussed, and recommendations are made for increasing students’ skill in composing effective academic texts.
Information about Author(s)*
Author 1
Author (Last name, First name)	Deveci, Tanju
Affiliated institution (University)	Khalifa University of Science and Technology
Country	United Arab Emirates
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No) Write only one corresponding author.	Yes
Author 2
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 3
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 4
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)

Keywords

• Sentence openers

References

1. Author (2018a)
2. Author (2018b)
3. Agnew, S., & Harrison, N. (2017). The role of gender, cognitive attributes and personality on willingness to take risks. Business and Economic Research, 7(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.5296/ber.v7i1.10371
4. Alley, M. (1996). The craft of scientific writing. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2482-0
5. American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
6. Gopen, G. D., & Swan, J. A. (1990). The science of scientific writing. American Scientist, 78(6). 550-558.
7. Hashimoto, I. (1993). Sentence variety: Where theory and practice meet and lose. Composition Studies: Freshman English News, 21, 66-77.
8. Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609427

9. Hogsette, D. S. (2009). Writing that makes sense: Critical thinking in college composition. Eugene, OR: Resource Publications.
10. Imam, H. (2013). Straight to yes! Asking with confidence and getting what you want. West Sussex: Capstone.
11. Jia, P. (2006). Simple approaches to writing short essays (for students of English as a second language). Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.
12. Killgallon, D. (1987). Sentence composing: The complete course. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
13. Kim, Y. S., & Snow, C. E. (2009). Text modification: Enhancing English language learners’ reading comprehension. In E.H. Hiebert & M. Sailor (Eds). Finding the right text: What works for beginning and struggling learners’ reading comprehension (129-46). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
14. Krashen, S. (1984). Writing: Research, theory and application. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100006197
15. Mamishev, A., & Williams, S. (2010). Technical writing for teams: The STREAM tools handsbook. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470602706
16. Myhill, D. (2008). Toward a linguistic model of sentence development in writing. Language and Education, 2(5), 271-288. doi: https://doi.org/10.2167/le775.0
17. Paraskevas, C. (2006). Apprenticeship. The English Journal, 95(5), 65-70. https://doi.org/10.2307/30046591
18. Pennington, M. (2009). Essential study skills: Self-guided personal assessment, study skill tips, and reflection workbook. El Dorada Hills, CA: Pennington Publishing.
19. Raimes, A., Miller-Cochran, S. K. (2018). Keys for writers. Boston, MA: CENGAGE Learning.
20. Riley, W. K. (1964). Sentence openers in freshman writing. College English, 26(3), 228-230. https://doi.org/10.2307/373597
21. Ringler, M. C. (2015). Academic language literacy: Developing instructional leadership skills for principals and teachers. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
22. Sayidina, A. M. (2010). Transfer of L1 cohesive devices and transition words into L2 academic texts: The case of Arab students. RELC Journal, 41(3), 253-266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688210380569
23. Smith, R. N. (1982). Computerized aids to writing. In W. Frawley (Ed.). Linguistics and literacy (pp. 189-208). New York and London: Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9302-7_9
24. Starkey, D. (2015). Academic writing now: A brief guide for busy students. Ontario: Broadview Press.
25. Struc, N., & Wood, N. (2011). A corpus-based investigation of syntactic complexity, fluency, sentence variety, and sentence development in L2 genre writing. Reitaku University Journal, 93, 45-79.
26. Swales, J. M., Ahmad, U. K., Chang, Y. Y., Chavez, D., Dressen, D. F., & Seymour, R. (1988). Consider this: The role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 97-121. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.1.97
27. Walter, J. (2017). Building writing skills: The hands-on way. Boston: Cengage Learning.
28. Wolfe, D. M. (1950). Variety in sentence structure: A device. College English, 11(7), 394-397. https://doi.org/10.2307/586025