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

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).