Signalling and Linking Language
Relating ideas logically is fundamental to academic writing because it enables you to construct arguments that present and support your own position. When you develop an argument in English, these logical relations need to be clearly marked. If you don’t do this, there is a risk that your reader may not recognise your argument or they may misunderstand the connections between your ideas. If this happens, the reader will have difficulty in following the development of your thinking. In this unit, we focus on the language used in academic writing that helps signal the logical relations between your ideas.
Linking Words
The following table identifies the most common linking constructions used in English academic writing:
The Effect of Linking Language
Which linking constructions you use have a significant affect the intelligibility, or readability, of your writing. Consider the student examples below to better understand how your choice of linking construction impacts your writing style. However, in the examples, one single linking construction or approach is employed repeatedly throughout the paragraph. In order for your writing to sound vibrant and engaging, it is important to utilise the different linguistic tools at your disposal, and employ a variety of different linking constructions throughout your writing.
Oxford Linking Examples
Signalling & Linking Language Effect
In the versions below, an Oxford student's paragraph has been redrafted using different linking constructions. Consider the impact of the linking choices and compare your interpretation with the analysis below:
Version 1
"The Canadians initiated talks with the US because they felt they had to make a choice between ‘a relatively free enterprise world’ in North America and a ‘government controlled world’ in Europe. Although a comprehensive settlement was reached, King killed the deal because he felt it would destroy the British character of the country.12 King, Skelton, and the older cabinet ministers saw the same facts as Pearson and Robertson, but they interpreted them differently."
Analysis
This (original) version contains three subordinating conjunctions (because, although, because) and one coordinating conjunction (but). It is therefore made up of a mix of long (complex and compound) sentences, each of which has multiple clauses. Stylistically, the writing is highly comparative, which forces the reader to repeatedly weigh the relative relationship between multiple ideas in each sentence. This style makes the writing sound literary (like a novel) but the information isn't always retained well by the reader.
Version 2
"The Canadians felt they had to make a choice between ‘a relatively free enterprise world’ in North America and a ‘government controlled world’ in Europe. Therefore, they initiated talks with the US. A comprehensive settlement was reached. Nevertheless, King killed the deal. The reason for this was that he felt it would destroy the British character of the country.12 King, Skelton, and the older cabinet ministers saw the same facts as Pearson and Robertson. However, they interpreted them differently."
Analysis
This version contains a number of simple sentences with three discourse markers linking them semantically. There are no multiple clause sentences. While this writing style is common in the Natural Sciences, stylistically, it may appear somewhat simplistic and robotic in other disciplines.
Version 3
"The Canadians initiated talks with the US because of their belief that they had to make a choice between ‘a relatively free enterprise world’ in North America and a ‘government controlled world’ in Europe. Notwithstanding the achievement of a comprehensive settlement, King killed the deal due to his conviction that it would destroy the British character of the country.12 Despite their recognition of the same facts as Pearson and Robertson, King, Skelton, and the older cabinet ministers interpreted them differently."
Analysis
This extract includes a number of complex prepositions. The effect is similar to texts that suffer from over-nominalisation. Stylistically, the writing comes across as repetitive and somewhat dense.