Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-nlwjb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T05:52:07.184Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teaching linguistic argumentation through a writing-intensive approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Panayiotis A. Pappas ,
Maite Taboada  and
Kathryn Alexander
Panayiotis A. Pappas*
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University
Maite Taboada*
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University
Kathryn Alexander*
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University
*
Pappas Linguistics, SFU, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby BC, Canada V5A 1S6, panayiotis_pappas@sfu.ca
mtaboada@sfu.ca
kalexander@sfu.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present the results of a study on whether writing-intensive learning techniques can assist beginner students in learning linguistic argumentation. The analysis is based on student submissions (eighty submissions from twenty students, 22,328 words) from a typical Introduction to Linguistics course, which were analyzed with the Coh-Metrix tool (McNamara et al. 2014), a suite of tests that measures cohesion of the linguistic formulation of the text and coherence of the mental representation. The essays show improvement in descriptive measures (lexical diversity, use of content words) and greater simplicity in terms of readability, suggesting a growth in the sophistication of the students' argumentation and disciplinary knowledge.

Keywords

linguistic argumentationundergraduate educationwriting studieswriting-intensive learningcohesioncoherenceCoh-Metrix

Information

Type
Teaching Linguistics
Information
Language , Volume 95 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. e339 - e363
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, Catherine. 2016. Learning to think like linguists: A think-aloud study of novice phonology students. Language 92(4). e274–e291. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2016.0081.10.1353/lan.2016.0081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, Jeanne. 2010. Designing a writing intensive course with information literacy and critical thinking learning outcomes. Reference Services Review 38. 445–57. DOI: 10.1108/00907321011070928.10.1108/00907321011070928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Artemeva, Natasha, and Freedman, Aviva. 2006. Rhetorical genre studies and beyond. Winnipeg: Inkshed.Google Scholar
Artemeva, Natasha, and Freedman, Aviva. 2015. Genre studies around the globe: Beyond the three traditions. Winnipeg: Inkshed.Google Scholar
Bartholomae, David. 1985. Inventing the university. When a writer can't write: Studies in writer's block and other composing-process problems, ed. by Rose, Mike, 135–65. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Bazerman, Charles. 2005. Reference guide to writing across the curriculum. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor.Google Scholar
Bean, John C. 2011. Engaging ideas: The professor's guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Berkenkotter, Carol, Huckin, Thomas; and Ackerman, John. 1995. Conventions, conversations, and the writer: An apprenticeship tale of a doctoral student. Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power, ed. by Berkenkotter, Carol and Huckin, Thomas, 117–50. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brownell, Sara E., Price, Jordan V.; and Steinman, Lawrence. 2013. A writing-intensive course improves biology undergraduates' perception and confidence of their abilities to read scientific literature and communicate science. Advances in Physiology Education 37. 70–79. DOI: 10.1152/advan.00138.2012.10.1152/advan.00138.2012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canada, Mark. 2018. Teaching linguistics through lexicography. American Speech 93(2). 311–23. DOI: 10.1215/00031283-6926179.10.1215/00031283-6926179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, Alan F. 2013. What is this thing called science? 4th edn. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Coe, Richard, Lingard, Lorelei, Teslenko, Tatiana, Williamson, Michael M.; and Jolliffe, David L.. 2002. The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change. New York: Hampton.Google Scholar
Coffin, Caroline, Curry, Mary Jane, Goodman, Sharon, Hewings, Ann, Lillis, Theresa; and Swann, Joan. 2005. Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203994894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Vivian. 2016. Second language learning and language teaching. 2nd edn. London: Edward Arnold.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortes, Viviana. 2007. Teaching lexical bundles in the disciplines: An example from a writing intensive history class. Linguistics and Education 17. 391–406. DOI: 10.1016/j.linged.2007.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Hume, Elizabeth. 2013. Teaching about how language works to diverse populations. Language and Linguistics Compass 7(10). 523–33. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12042.10.1111/lnc3.12042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curzan, Anne. 2009. Says who? Teaching and questioning the rules of grammar. PMLA 124(3). 870–79. DOI: 10.1632/pmla.2009.124.3.870.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, and Sanders, Ted. 2002. The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing 15(7–8). 739–58. DOI: 10.1023/A:1020932715838.10.1023/A:1020932715838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denham, Kristin. 2015. Examining linguistics in the Language strand of the Common Core State Standards. Language and Linguistics Compass 9(3). 139–49. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12125.10.1111/lnc3.12125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dias, Patrick, Freedman, Aviva, Medway, Peter; and Paré, Anthony, 2013. Worlds apart: Acting and writing in academic and workplace contexts. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781410602336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dias, Patrick, and Paré, Anthony, 2000. Transitions: Writing in academic and workplace settings. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.Google Scholar
Elbow, Peter. 1986. Embracing contraries: Explorations in teaching and learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elbow, Peter. 1998. Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195120172.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elbow, Peter, and Sorcinelli, Mary Deane. 2005. How to enhance learning by using high-stakes and low-stakes writing. McKeachie's teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers, 12th edn., ed. by McKeachie, Wilbert J. and Svinicki, Marilla, 192–212. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Flesch, Rudolph. 1948. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology 32. 221–33. DOI: 10.1037/h0057532.10.1037/h0057532CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freedman, Aviva, and Medway, Peter (eds.) 1994. Genre and the new rhetoric. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Gauch, Hugh G. Jr. 2012. Scientific method in brief. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139095082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 2014. How languages work: An introduction to language and linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gimbel, Steven. 2011. Exploring the scientific method: Cases and questions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226294841.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graesser, Arthur C., McNamara, Danielle S., Cai, Zhiqang, Conley, Mark, Li, Haiying; and Pennebaker, James. 2014. Coh-Metrix measures text characteristics at multiple levels of language and discourse. The Elementary School Journal 115(2). 210–29. DOI: 10.1086/678293.10.1086/678293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graesser, Arthur C., McNamara;, Danielle S. and Kulikowich, Jonna M.. 2011. Coh-Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher 40(5). 223–34. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X11413260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graesser, Arthur C., McNamara, Danielle S., Louwerse, Max M.; and Cai, Zhiqiang. 2004. Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36(2). 193–202. DOI: 10.3758/BF03195564.10.3758/BF03195564CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Martin, James R.. 1993. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., McIntosh;, Angus and Strevens, Peter. 1964. The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, Kristine A. 2018. Teaching about endangered languages in the undergraduate curriculum. Language and Linguistics Compass 12(7):e12283. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12283.10.1111/lnc3.12283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2004. Why education needs linguistics (and vice versa). Journal of Linguistics 40(1). 105–30. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226703002342.10.1017/S0022226703002342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphrey, Sally, and Dreyfus, Shoshana. 2012. Exploring the interpretive genre in applied linguistics. Indonesian Journal of SFL 1(2). 156–74.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2004. Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.23927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2006. English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203006603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2015. Academic publishing: Issues and challenges in the construction of knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2016. Methods and methodologies in second language writing research. System 59(C). 116–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2016.05.002.10.1016/j.system.2016.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johns, Ann M. 1997. Text, role and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, David, and Palmer, Chris C.. 2015. Comparing student assessments and perceptions of online and face-to-face versions of an introductory linguistics course. Online Learning 19(2). DOI: 10.24059/olj.v19i2.449.Google Scholar
Kovanović, Vitomir, Joksimović, Srećko, Mirriahi, Negin, Blaine, Ellen, Gašević, Dragan, Siemens, George; and Dawson, Shane. 2018. Understand students' self-reflections through learning analytics. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, 389–98.Google Scholar
Landauer, Thomas K., and Dumais, Susan T.. 1997. A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review 104(2). 211–40. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211.10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 2013. Teaching introductory graduate syntax. Language 89(1). e11–e17. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2013.0017.10.1353/lan.2013.0017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leggette, H. R., and Homeyer, M.. 2015. Understanding students' experiences in writing-intensive courses. NACTA Journal 59. 116–21.Google Scholar
Light, Richard J. 2001. Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674417502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahfouz, Inas Youssef. 2017. Enhancing blends and linguistics courses. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research 5(4). 120–30. Online: https://ijier.net/ijier/article/view/670/563.10.31686/ijier.vol5.iss4.670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, Danielle S., Crossley, Scott A.; and McCarthy, Philip M.. 2010. Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication 27(1). 57–86. DOI: 10.1177/0741088309351547.10.1177/0741088309351547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, Danielle S., Graesser, Arthur C., McCarthy;, Philip M. and Cai, Zhiqiang. 2014. Automatic evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511894664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, Danielle S., Louwerse, Max M., McCarthy;, Philip M. and Graesser, Arthur C.. 2010. Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes 47(4). 292–330. DOI: 10.1080/01638530902959943.10.1080/01638530902959943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Carolyn R. 1984. Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70(2). 151–67. DOI: 10.1080/00335638409383686.10.1080/00335638409383686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millis, Keith K., and Just, Marcel A.. 1994. The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 33. 128–47. DOI: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1007.10.1006/jmla.1994.1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monroe, Jonathan. 2002. Writing and revising the disciplines. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Monroe, Jonathan. 2003. Local knowledges, local practices: Writing in the disciplines at Cornell. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
O'Grady, William, and Archibald, John. 2012. Contemporary linguistic analysis: An introduction. 7th edn. Toronto: Pearson Canada.Google Scholar
Paltridge, Brian, Harbon, Lesley, Hirsh, David, Shen, Huizhong, Stevenson, Marie, Phakiti, Aek; and Woodrow, Lindy. 2009. Teaching academic writing: An introduction for teachers of second language writers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.300562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petray, Marnie Jo. 2004. Changing linguistic pedagogy: A case study of five introductory linguistics textbooks. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University dissertation.Google Scholar
Polio, Charlene, and Yoon, Hyung-Jo. 2018. The reliability and validity of automated tools for examining variation in syntactic complexity across genres. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 28(2). 165–88. DOI: 10.1111/ijal.12200.10.1111/ijal.12200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, Paul. 1998. Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Russell, David R. 2002. Writing in the academic disciplines: A curricular history. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, David R. 2013. Contradictions regarding teaching and writing (or writing to learn) in the disciplines: What we have learned in the USA. REDU: Revista de Docencia Universitaria 11(1). 161–81. Online: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/engl_pubs/260/.Google Scholar
Spilka, Rachel (ed.) 1998. Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, Thomas W., and Vaillette, Nathan (eds.) 2001. Language files: Materials for an introduction to language and linguistics. 8th edn. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Strachan, Wendy. 2008. Writing-intensive: Becoming W-faculty in a new writing curriculum. Logan: Utah University Press.10.2307/j.ctt4cgkn2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swales, John M. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Veel, Robert. 1997. Learning how to mean—scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school, ed. by Christie, Frances and Martin, James, 161–95. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Wingate, Ursula. 2012. ‘Argument!‘ Helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11(2). 145–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.001.10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winsor, Dorothy A. 1996. Writing like an engineer: A rhetorical education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Xu, Weiwei, and Liu, Ming. 2016. Using Coh-Metrix to analyze Chinese ESL learners' writing. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research 15(5). 16–26. Online: https://www.ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/view/640.Google Scholar