INSTRUCTION: Read the text and answer the item.

COHESION

Following Halliday & Hasan (1976) I shall consider cohesion under the headings “grammatical cohesion”, “lexical cohesion” and “conjunction”, which the authors describe as “on the borderline of the two; mainly grammatical, but with a lexical component in it” (op cit.p.6). Again, our concern will be with those items that contribute to an understanding of the main ideas of the text.

Lexical cohesion

By lexical cohesion is meant relationships between ideas in the text indicated either by the use of repetition of lexical items, or synonymous lexical items, or again items in a hyponymous (“class” names co-occurring with instances of that class) or even an antonymous relationship.

When a notion, concept or referent in a text is referred to more than once, the repeated reference may be indicated by grammatical markers of cohesion, notably definite articles, pronouns, demonstrative adjectives, etc. This repeated reference also helps us, as readers, to structure the meaning and development of the text, although explicit reference to these features and other similar identification tasks would probably only arise when we are at the level of detailed comprehension.

Although it might be expected that such cohesive ties are less frequent across paragraph boundaries than within paragraphs (see Halliday & Hasan, op.cit. p.297), the lexical cohesion in the present text is, in fact, quite extensive both within the paragraphs and between them.

(DEYES, T. Applications of Discourse Analysis. Towards a Minimum Discourse Grammar. In: Celani, M.A.A. et. al.
ESP in Brazil: 25 years of evolution and reflection, 2005, São Paulo, Editora da PUC.)

According to the text, grammatical markers of cohesion

INSTRUCTION: Read the text and answer item.

THE TIE-BACK NATURE OF BECOMING LITERATE

For those of us who have come from mainstream homes where we were oriented to composition-centered tasks and academic uses of language from our earliest communicative experiences, the implicit rules of academic language seem natural to us. However, we have learned these rules in a rich context of numerous supporting, reinforcing activities. For most of our students, however, we have to make explicit the academic habits of using oral and written language which the school requires, and we have to provide social interactive meaningful occasions for repeating these habits again and again. Since we cannot know the specific first language socialization of the Indo-Chinese, Middle Eastern African, or Latin American students in our classes we can solicit from them as much as possible about their first language socialization through asking them to recollect and collect as much as possible. However, this information will not be sufficient to guide decisions about particular uses of language with which they may be unfamiliar. Thus, ESL/EFL teachers must incorporate into the classroom a variety of types of writing and talking about writing; furthermore the content around which these occasions of talking and writing focus should ideally be familiar. To complicate learning a new language by asking that new content be learned as well, is to make extraordinary cognitive demands on students. Thus we begin with what they know – their own language socialization – and we help them make explicit in their second or foreign language what it is they do know about their oral and written uses of language (see Vann 1981).

(HEATH, S. B. Literacy skills or literate skills? Considerations for ESL/EFL learners.

In: Nunan, D. (Ed.) Collaborative language learning. 1992. Glasgow, CUP.)

According to the text

INSTRUCTION: Read the text and answer the item.

READING AS PROCESS

A reader-centered approach is evidenced in reading instruction which focuses, first, on what the reader brings to reading in schematic world knowledge and language knowledge and, second, on their ability and willingness to draw on productive strategies in the course of reading. More traditional reading pedagogy emphasized comprehension in the form of the presentation of text followed by post-reading questions on the text. Process approaches attend, first, to the need to prime the reader with new knowledge or prompt the reader to recover existing knowledge (in advance of reading the text) and, second, to make maximum use of cognitive and linguistic resources during text processing. This involves providing 'pre-reading' tasks (such as brainstorming, semantic mapping, true-false or agree-disagree tasks), as well as 'while-reading' tasks (such as margin prompts, encouraging the linking or cross-referencing of one part of a text to another, or encouraging first skim readings followed by closer, more focused ones). Many contemporary coursebooks (e.g. Rossner 1988; Murphy and Cooper 1995) offer a range of such tasks.

A key principle in the design of these tasks is the encouragement of flexible and reflective reading. Flexibility might be promoted by devising tasks encouraging readers to read a range of texts in different ways (e.g. a close detailed reading for some genres and a scanned and later more focused reading for others). Reflective reading, where the reader is engaged with the text, might be encouraged by the interspersion of questions or prompts during the text to encourage interrogation of text. More recent studies of reader strategies (e.g. Janzen and Stoller 1998) invite readers to reflect more specifically on their own reading strategies and to judge the effectiveness of those of other readers.

(WALLACE, C. Reading. In: Carter, R. and Nunan, D. (Eds.) Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. 2001, Cambridge, CUP.)

Read the following extracts from the text.

– More traditional reading pedagogy

– and, second, to make maximum use of cognitive and linguistic resources during text processing.

– (such as brainstorming, semantic mapping, true-false or agree-disagree tasks)

Mark the alternative that classifies each one respectively.