The use of sequencers in academic writing - Université de Caen ...

35
Schedae, 2006
Prépublication n° 5 Fascicule n° 1
The use of sequencers in academic writing:
a comparative study of French and English
Susanne Hempel & Liesbeth Degand
Université catholique de Louvain
Abstract:
This paper presents the results of a parametric and frequency analysis of discourse structuring
devices in written texts. We present a typology of organisational metadiscourse markers and
examine one specific category of these markers – sequencers - in more detail (Jackiewicz 2002,
2003). A manual corpus analysis, allying descriptive and quantitative analyses, gives a detailed
picture of how sequencers are used in the specific genre of academic writing by native authors
of French and English.
Keywords: comparative study, organisational metadiscourse markers, corpus analysis,
text production.
Résumé:
Ce travail présente les résultats d’une analyse paramétrique et fréquentielle d’éléments linguistiques
structurant des textes écrits. Nous établissons une typologie de marqueurs organisationnels
métadiscursifs, ainsi qu’une description détaillée d’une catégorie de ces marqueurs – les
séquenceurs (Jackiewicz 2002, 2003). Par une analyse de corpus manuelle, alliant analyse descriptive
et quantitative (Degand & Bestgen 2004), nous réalisons une étude comparative de l’emploi
des séquenceurs en anglais et en français dans le genre spécifique des textes académiques.
Mots-clés: étude comparative, marqueurs organisationnels métadiscursifs, analyse de
corpus, production de texte.
The primary objective of our paper is to analyse how textual organisation works on the
metadiscourse level. To do this, we present a descriptive corpus analysis of one specific
type of text structuring devices, namely sequencers, in two different languages (French and
English) and their actual use in the genre of academic writing.
Consider the following examples:
1 “Les sentiments ont été classés selon deux critères. D'une part, leur structure
actantielle: ego passif, réflexif, actif sur un ou plusieurs congénères ou objets;
d'autre part, le taxème où ils sont indexés.” (French_Academic)
2 “Since the union organisations are part of PRI, they have a dual function: firstly,
as a pressure group lobbying for a greater share of social benefits for labour;
secondly, as an apparatus of political control of the working class.” (BNC World
Edition)
Susanne Hempel & Liesbeth Degand
« The use of sequencers in academic writing: a comparative study of French and English »
Schedae, 2006, prépublication n°5, (fascicule n°1, p. 35-40).

36
In both examples, the ideational content of the text is structured by linguistic items (d’une
part/ d’autre part; firstly/ secondly). These sequencing devices are items belonging to the
domain of textual metadiscourse, whose function is to allow the understanding of the primary
message by making explicit the organisational structure of the propositional content (Hyland
1998). Building our conception of metadiscourse on Hyland’s typology 1 , we focus on his
category of frame markers as they best represent what we call organisational metadiscourse
markers. A further categorisation of these markers has been developed: Our new subdivision
consists of sequencers (elements used to introduce a sequence in the discourse), topicalisers
(elements indicating the introduction of a new subject), illocution markers (elements
indicating the illocutionary act the writer has been realising in the discourse) and reviews/
previews (elements anticipating or repeating a stage in the discourse).
Our understanding of sequencers is based on the theoretical framework of discourse and
cognition proposed by Charolles (1997) and on the methodological outline of MIL (marqueurs
d’intégration linéaires) described by Jackiewicz (2002). Following these authors’ approach,
sequencers can be classified into three types: spatial sequencers (linguistic elements relative
to space), temporal sequencers (introducing a temporal sequence) and numerical sequencers
(elements relative to enumeration).
The series of a sequence follow certain structural parameters. We defined a reference
structure of a sequence, drawing both on the analysis of some instances of these structures and
on the study of different theoretical models, notably the one by Jackiewicz & Minel (2003).
– A typical sequence has to be introduced by an introductory phrase, clearly stating the
main federative idea with the help of a quantifier and a classifier. The introductory phrase
can be a separate phrase before the organisational frame, it can be a proposition at the
head of the same phrase containing the sequencer, or it can be situated after the several
series of the sequence;
– Each series constitutes an organisational frame, and each organisational frame has to
be opened explicitly by a sequencer, or implicitly by another linguistic item which signposts
the beginning of its series;
– The sequencers are organised as follows: the first sequencer is the ‘indicator’, followed
by the ‘intermediate’ sequencer and the ‘closing sequencer’. If there are only two sequencers
in a sequence, the last sequencer automatically makes up the ‘closing sequencer’;
– A sequence should preferentially be homogeneous; it is not homogeneous if it contains
constituents belonging to two different series, if the sequence is incomplete or not explicitly
closed, or if the sequence presents a certain variability concerning the classifier;
– A minimal sequence should be two-fold, but there is no restriction as to a maximum of
series in a sequence;
– The sequencers are independent of the propositional content of the phrase, and as such
are supposed to be mostly placed at the beginning of the sentence, either without or
before a punctuation marker;
– The scope of the individual sequencers can be on an intra-sentential level, or on an intersentential
level;
– Another sequence can be embedded in the main sequence, and if this is the case, the
same structural parameters apply to it.
Ideally, following these parameters, a sequence should look like this:
1. Hyland’s taxonomy of textual metadiscourse is five-fold, containing transitions, frame markers, endophoric
markers and code glosses (Hyland 1998).
Schedae, 2006, prépublication n°5, (fascicule n°1, p. 35-40).

37
3 He gives three main reasons for his doubts –
• Firstly, he could not reconcile his own experience with the descriptions
of conversion given in books on the subject, such as Repentance by
William Perkins;
• Secondly, he was disturbed by the fact that spiritual truths didn’t stir his
emotions or grip his imagination as Perkins;
• Thirdly, he was concerned about the possibility that his faith was merely
an intellectual understanding coupled with a fear of God, and that he
was not truly regenerate. (BNC World Edition).
In a preceding corpus analysis of English (Hempel & Degand 2005), the actual use of
sequencers has been analysed with respect to this reference model. We derived a detailed
picture of how native authors use sequencers in their texts, and how they are distributed
among different text genres. The results showed that the actual use of sequencers does not
correspond to the prescription of manuals for L1 writers. While such guides urge them to use
structuring devices in order to be more coherent and recommend homogeneous/ complete
series of metadiscourse markers, concrete texts do not apply those rules. Furthermore, writers
are obviously not precise when using specific series of sequencers and complete sequences.
Moreover, genre proved to be a decisive factor concerning the choice of structuring devices.
Our hypothesis that academic writing is the genre the most structured by metadiscourse
markers proved to be right. We are therefore interested in a comparative study of how
sequencers are used in this specific genre, both in English and French.
The methodology we used to conduct our study consists in a parametric and statistical
analysis of the given corpus data (Degand & Bestgen 2004, Pit 2003, Pander Maat & Degand
2001, Spooren, Sanders, Huiskes, Degand, in press). It allows us to combine a quantitative
approach – or more precisely, a frequency analysis – with a qualitative one – that is to say,
a parametric analysis of our data. This method is situated on a continuum where “intuition
and data collection work hand in hand” (Partington 1998: 1): between a strictly deductive
approach, exclusively relying on the researcher’s intuition as a native speaker, and a strictly
inductive approach, exclusively founded on the linguistic facts. The corpus we used for the
present study in English is a sub-corpus of academic writing of 28 421 624 words, retrieved
from the BNC. The French corpus (1 380 956 words) is an assembly of freely available online
papers, stemming from three sources: the publications from IFRI, and from the online journals
Methodos and Texto 2 .
The results of our frequency analysis show how the chosen sequencers are distributed
among the two languages. As our corpora were not of equal size, it was necessary to apply
a coefficient to harmonise results over one million words (Table 1).
FRENCH 1 380 956 ENGLISH 28 421 624
occurrences /1 000 000 /1 000 000 occurrences
D’une part 146 105,72 15,66 445 On the one hand
D’autre part 133 96,31 52,04 1479 On the other hand
Premièrement 29 21,00 18,19 517 Firstly
Deuxièmement 28 20,28 31,49 895 Secondly
Troisièmement 7 5,07 9,53 271 Thirdly
D’abord 243 175,97 11,65 331 At first
Ensuite 210 152,07 143,83 4088 Then
Enfin 523 378,72 62,87 1787 Finally
Table 1: Frequency Analysis.
2. We would like to thank Lydia-Mai Ho-Dac (University of Toulouse) and Paula Chesley (University at Buffalo)
for making these data available to us.
Schedae, 2006, prépublication n°5, (fascicule n°1, p. 35-40).

38
As we can see, there is a difference in French and in English concerning the homogeneous
use of sequencers. In French, the spatial sequence d’une part/ d’autre part is used
in a homogeneous way, the indicator d’une part co-occuring quasi systematically with the
closing sequence d’autre part, whereas in English, the under-use of the indicator (on the
one hand) is apparent. The same difference has been noticed with the numerical sequence,
whose chronological order is respected in French, but not in English. And as to the temporal
sequence, English again shows an under-use of the indicator when compared to French.
It can be said that in French, the sequences seem to be more homogeneous or complete
than in English, when considering the amount of indicators and intermediate sequencers.
Our parametric study yielded interesting results as well (Table 2). It can be observed
that the use of the three sequencer types is principally similar in both languages. Minor differences
concern the introduction of a sequence by a preceding phrase, sentential scope,
completeness and the number of series in a sequence. However, a major difference has
been noticed concerning syntax: it appears that English authors make use of a bigger variety
of syntactic position in their texts. As to spatial sequencers, they also show a bigger variety
of the position of punctuation markers than in French. This under-use of syntactic possibilities
in French seems odd, especially if one considers the relative liberty in French syntax. As it
seems easier to juggle with the syntactic position of metadiscourse markers in French, a concrete
study in text production has to be undertaken. This result confirms the observation in
our frequency analysis, namely that French authors apply the parameters of our reference
model more rigorously than English authors, and tend to produce more complete sequences.
Sequencer
type
Spatial
sequencer
Numerical
sequencer
Temporal
sequencer
Parameters ENGLISH FRENCH
Common
Introductory phrase
Nb. of series in sequence
Homogeneity/ completeness
Syntactic position
Punctuation
Scope
Classifier
Quantifier
Introductory phrase
Nb. of series in sequence
Homogeneity/ completeness
Syntactic position
Punctuation
Scope
Classifier
Quantifier
Introductory phrase
Nb. of series in sequence
Homogeneity/ completeness
Syntactic position
Punctuation
Scope
Classifier
Quantifier
yes
no
2 series
yes
initial/ middle
middle
absent/ after/ enclosing
after
intra-sentential
yes
no
no
yes
3 series 2 series / +3 series
yes/no
yes
initial
after
inter-sentential
yes
specified
no
2 series 1 /2 /3 series
no
initial/ middle
middle
absent
intra-sentential
inter-sentential
no
no
Table 2. Parametric Analysis.
The results of this study, i.e. the differences and common points between French and
English as to the use of metadiscursive items, will serve as an interesting baseline for future
research in L2. We would like to examine how language learners of both languages handle
these differences when transferring from their mother tongue to L2. How are the differences
transferred, and how are the common characteristics transferred? How does metadiscourse
influence L2 production? These questions will need further analysis.
Schedae, 2006, prépublication n°5, (fascicule n°1, p. 35-40).

39
Bibliography
CHAROLLES M. (1997), “L’encadrement du discours – Univers, champ, domaines et espace”, Cahier de
recherche linguistique, 6.
DEGAND L. & BESTGEN Y. (2004), “Connecteurs et analyse de corpus: de l’analyse manuelle à l’analyse
automatisée”, in L’Unité Texte, S. Porhiel and D. Klingler (eds), France, Perspective, p. 49-73.
HEMPEL S. & DEGAND L. (2005), “Qualitative analysis of sequencers in three text genres: academic writing,
journalese and fiction” (submitted).
HYLAND K. (1998), “Persuasion and Context: The pragmatics of academic discourse”, Journal of Pragmatics,
30, p. 437-455.
HYLAND K. & TSE P. (2004), “Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal”, Applied Linguistics, 25, 2,
p. 156-177.
JACKIEWICZ A. (2002), “Repérage et délimitation des cadres organisationnels pour la segmentation
automatique des textes”, in Actes de CIFT’02, Hammamet, Tunisia, p. 95-105.
JACKIEWICZ A. & MINEL J. (2003), “L’identification des structures discursives engendrées par les cadres
organisationnels”, in Actes de la 10 e Conférence Traitement Automatique du Langage Naturel (TALN 2003),
Batz-sur-Mer, p. 155-164.
PANDER MAAT H. & DEGAND L. (2001), “Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of Speaker
Involvement”, Cognitive Linguistics, 12, p. 211-245.
PIT M. (2003), How to express yourself with a causal connective – Subjectivity and causal connectives in
Dutch, German and French, Amsterdam – New York, Rodopi – USL&C.
SPOOREN W., SANDERS T., HUISKES M. & DEGAND L. (to appear), “Subjectivity and Causality: A Corpus Study
of Spoken Language”, in Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research, S. Rice
and J. Newman (eds), CSLI Publications.
TURCO G. & COLTIER D. (1988), “Des agents doubles de l’organisation textuelle, les marqueurs d’intégration
linéaire”, Pratiques, 57, p. 57-79.
Schedae, 2006, prépublication n°5, (fascicule n°1, p. 35-40).

40
Schedae, 2006, prépublication n°5, (fascicule n°1, p. 35-40).