Grammatical Cohesion in the Introduction Chapters of Linguistics Ph.D. Theses Written by Anglophone Academic Writers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective formal writing skills are crucial for educational success and improved academic status; however, writing in English can be challenging, especially for inexperienced English writers and for those individuals for whom English is not their primary language. One often experienced challenge is the appropriate use of cohesive devices (CDs) to organize texts and enhance their semantic potential. Thus, this study analyzed the grammatical CDs utilized by Anglophone Academic Writers (AAWs) in the introduction chapters of 45 Ph.D. theses (86,000 words) in the field of linguistics using Halliday and Hasan’s CDs taxonomy. The analysis showed that AAWs mainly employed references, particularly personal and demonstrative, followed by conjunctions, particularly additive ones, as their dominant CDs. Additive conjunctions helped establish the coherent progressions of ideas in the introductions, while personal references, especially first-person pronouns, conveyed authorial presence. Demonstrative references emphasized important ideas discussed in the theses. The strategic application of these grammatical CDs effectively directed readers through the introductions, creating a logical flow for the writers’ points. Therefore, this study presents valuable insights into the cohesive writing practices of AAWs, which can be used to enhance writing instruction and help novice English writers in improving their formal writing skills.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".