Examining surface features of a student's writing as a manifestation of communication intention can lead to new insights about that student's writing. Cohesion implies that a written text is more than a mere collection of statements no matter how syntactically mature or grammatically correct such sentences appear. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of college age learning-disabled, normal, and basic writers in the use of specific types of textual cohesion on an expository mode of writing. Results for both frequency and accuracy of cohesive ties are reported, with a discussion of implications.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baldwin, T., McFarlane, P., & Garvey, C. (1971). Children's communication accuracy related to race and socio-economic status. Child Development, 40, 345-351.
2.
Cordoni, B. (1979). An experimental program design at a university. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 29, 263-268.
3.
Crew, F. (1976). The Random House Handbook (2nd ed.). New York: Random House, p. 176.
4.
Duncan, A. (1961). Socioeconomic scale. In A. Reiss, A. Duncan, P. Hunt, & C. North (Eds.), Occupations and social status. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
5.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance Services.
6.
Educational Testing Services (1977). Sentence Structure Test, College Board Descriptive Tests of Language Skills. Princeton, N.J.
7.
Eiler, M. A. (1983). Meaning and choice in writing about literature. In J. Fine & Ray O. Friedle (Eds.), Developmental issues in discourse. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Company, pp. 169-223.
8.
Elsasser, N. & John-Steiner, V. P. (1977). An interactionist's approach to advancing literacy. Harvard Education Review, 47 (3), 355-369.
9.
Gregg, K. N. (1982). An investigation of the breakdown in certain aspects of the writing process with college-age learning-disabled, normal, and basic writers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
10.
Gregg, N. (1983). College learning-disabled writer: Error patterns and instructional alternatives, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16 (6), 334-338.
11.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1977). Text as semantic choice in social context. In T. A. Van Dijk &J. S. Petofi (Eds.), Grammars and descriptions. Berlin: De Gruyter.
12.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotics: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: University Park Press.
13.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group, Ltd.
14.
Herbert, M. A., & Czerniejewski, C. (1976). Language and learning therapy in a community college. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 26, 96-106.
15.
Karlsen, B., Madden, R., & Gardner, E. F. (1976). Stanford Diagnostic Reading Comprehension Test. Orlando, Fla.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
16.
Litowitz, B. (1981). Developmental issues in written language. Topics in Language Disorders, 1 (2), 73-89.
17.
Myklebust, H. (1973). Development and disorders of written language: Studies of normal and exceptional children (vol. 2). Orlando, Fla.: Grune & Stratton.
18.
O'Donnell, R. C. (1967). A critique of some indices of syntactic maturity. Research in the Teaching of English, 10 (1), 31-38.
19.
Shaugnessy, M. P. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
20.
Vogel, S. (1980). Barat College writing program. Report VI: Final report. Lake Forest, Ill.: Barat College.
21.
Vogel, S., & Moran, M. R. (1982). Written language disorders in learning-disabled college students: A preliminary report. In W. Cruickshank &J. Lerner (Eds.), Coming of age: The best of ACLD (vol. 3). Syracuse, N.Y: Syracuse University Press.
22.
Winer, B. J. (1978). Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 287.
