The Distribution of Lexical Cohesive Ties in Iranian Newly Developed High School English Textbooks, Vision Series, and Their Impact on Iranian EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension
Keywords:
Cohesion, Coherent Links, EFL, Lexical Coherence, Reading ComprehensionAbstract
This study examined the role of lexical cohesion in the Vision Iran English as a Foreign Language (EFL) textbook series and its subsequent impact on learners’ reading comprehension and answered the research question: Quantify the distribution of lexical cohesion subgroups. Using a quantitative, descriptive-correlational, two-stage approach, the first phase of the Vision series textbooks was analyzed to quantify lexical cohesion links (repetition, synonymy, etc.) based on Tanskanen’s (2006) framework and showed a progression from basic repetition in Vision 1 to increased use of activity-related conjunctions in Vision 2 and a balance of repetition and elaboration conjunctions in Vision 3. The second phase measured EFL learners’ reading comprehension through pre- and post-tests, and statistical analyses including ANOVA and Pearson’s r were used to correlate cohesion data with comprehension scores.Key findings indicate a positive correlation between cohesive structure and comprehension, particularly with Vision 2, which suggests that a high density of cohesive ties, coupled with framing ties such as activity-related conjunctions, optimizes comprehension for intermediate learners, thereby emphasizing the critical importance of intentional textbook design and supporting the strategic use of scenario / activity-related conjunction networks. Limitations include the observational design, post-testing, use of intact groups, and a sample of male learners from a single institution.Future research could explore other contexts, longitudinal / experimental designs, effects on writing skills, and the interaction of learner backgrounds with the effectiveness of coherence tools, ultimately providing valuable insights for EFL teaching and textbook development, emphasizing a principled approach to coherence design aligned with learners’ cognitive needs.
Downloads
References
1. Wang T, Zhang H. Reciprocal Effects of Vocabulary Breadth, Vocabulary Depth, and Reading Comprehension: A Cross-Lagged Panel Analysis in Chinese-Speaking EFL Learners. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2025;12(1):1-10. doi: 10.1057/s41599-025-04694-2.
2. Tran QTT, Verezub E, Fisher R. Flipping EFL Reading Comprehension Classes: Students’ Learning Achievement and Perceptions. Teaching & Learning Inquiry the Issotl Journal. 2025;13:1-44. doi: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.13.13.
3. Qi X, Reynolds BL, Bai B. Self-regulated learning strategies and reading comprehension in Chinese (L1) and English (L2): A structural equation modeling study with primary students in China. Reading and Writing. 2025;38(2):345-68.
4. Yusuf F, et al. Fostering reading comprehension strategies in EFL contexts: Implications for teacher training programs. Education + Training. 2024;ahead-of-print:ahead-of-print.
5. Abdi R, Mohammadi V, Amani M. Study of Quality and Quantity of Nominal Groups in the Vision and Interchange Series. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning. 2024(33):359-72.
6. Abdolhay S, Sarkeshikian AH, Ashari Tabar N. A Critical Discourse Analysis of Vision Textbook Series within Faircloughian Framework. Language Horizons. 2023;7(2):7-31.
7. Halliday MAK, Hasan R. Cohesion in English: Routledge; 2014.
8. Graesser AC, McNamara DS, Louwerse MM, Cai Z. Coh-Metrix: Analysis of Text on Cohesion and Language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers. 2004;36(2):193-202. doi: 10.3758/BF03195564.
9. Foltz PW. Discourse and Text Analysis. Handbook of Psycholinguistics. 2nd ed: Academic Press; 2007. p. 164-91.
10. Mahlberg M. Lexical Cohesion: Corpus Linguistic Theory and Its Application in English Language Teaching. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 2006;11(3):363-83. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.11.3.08mah.
11. Graesser AC, McNamara DS, Louwerse MM. Cohesion in Text and Writing: Theory, Research, and Applications. Advances in Text Processing. 2004;8(2):189-206.
12. Afrianto A. Grammatical Cohesion in Students' Writing: A Case at Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia. Leksema: Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra. 2017;2(2):97-112. doi: 10.22515/ljbs.v2i2.899.
13. Aziz W. Markers of Lexical and Grammatical Cohesion: Analysis of Paragraphs in Thesis of Indonesian Language and Literature Education Students. Sumbawa: Lakidende University Press; 2015.
14. Chanyoo N. Cohesive Devices and Academic Writing Quality of Thai Undergraduate Students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 2018;9(5):994-1001. doi: 10.17507/jltr.0905.13.
15. Karoly K. Lexical Repetition in Text: A Study of the Text Organizing Function of Lexical Repetition in Foreign Language Argumentative Discourse. 2002.
16. Zhan L. Analysis of Lexical Repetition: Taking a News Discourse as an Example. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 2012;2(10):2160-7. doi: 10.4304/tpls.2.10.2160-2167.
17. Danglli L, Abazaj G. Lexical Cohesion, Word Choice and Synonymy in Academic Writing. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2014;5(14):628-33. doi: 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n14p628.
18. Hogue A, Oshima A. Introduction to Academic Writing: Longman Publishing Group; 2007.
19. DeVillez R. Writing: Step by Step: Kendall Hunt; 2003.
20. Hiver P, Al Hoorie AH. Research Methods for Complexity Theory in Applied Linguistics: Multilingual Matters; 2020.
21. Churchill E. Variation and Emergence in Interlanguage Syntax: A Dynamic Systems Interpretation. System. 2007;35(3):419-36.
22. Zhang Y, Zhang LJ. Heterogeneous Trajectories in L2 Learner Development. System. 2019;80:191-203.
23. Lowie WM, Verspoor MH. Individual Differences and the Ergodicity Problem. Language Learning. 2019;69:184-206. doi: 10.1111/lang.12324.
24. Zheng X. Dynamic Patterns of Lexis Development in L2 English Writing. System. 2016;56:40-52. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2015.11.007.
25. Zhang Y, Zhang LJ. Longitudinal Development of Global Cohesion in EFL Writing: A Complex Dynamic Systems Perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2023;60:101028. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101015.
26. Hoekstra RA, Ormel J, Hartman CA. Heterogeneity in Human Development. Developmental Psychology. 2011;47(1):204-10.
27. Curran PJ, Willoughby MT. Implications of Latent Trajectory Models for the Study of Developmental Psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology. 2003;15(3):581-612. doi: 10.1017/S0954579403000300.
28. Edgerton JD, Roberts LW, von Below S. Education and the Lifecourse: A Synthetic Framework. Journal of Education and Work. 2018;31(3):243-61.
29. Shiri H. Lexical Cohesion and Comprehension among Iranian EFL Students: Shiraz University; 2002.
30. Darweesh AD, Kadhim AH. Iraqi EFL Learners' Problems in Using Conjunctions as Cohesive Devices. Journal of Education and Practice. 2016;7(11):169-80.
31. Salehi A. Ellipsis in Farsi Elementary Textbooks. Tehran: Payame Noor University; 2003.
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Hasan Aalipoor (Author); Amin Marzban; Leila Akbarpour (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
