This study examines the role of lexical cohesion and critical thinking in enhancing the coherence and persuasiveness of argumentative writing, with a focus on pedagogical strategies for academic contexts. Through the analysis of three sample texts on diverse topics, the research demonstrates that cohesive devices such as connecting words, lexical chains, and academic collocations significantly improve clarity and logical progression, while stance markers strengthen evaluative authority. Original texts often exhibited limited lexical variety and implicit stance, whereas revised versions incorporated synonyms, collocations, and explicit evaluative language, resulting in more credible and academically appropriate discourse. To translate these findings into practice, structured lesson plans were developed, integrating text annotation, collaborative discussion, and guided rewriting to foster both linguistic precision and cognitive engagement. The results underscore the need for writing instruction that aligns cohesion-focused strategies with reasoning-based tasks, ensuring learners acquire the linguistic resources and analytical skills essential for effective academic communication. Implications for teaching and future research directions are discussed.
References
[1]
Andrews, R. (2010). ArgumentationinHigherEducation. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203872710
[2]
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). ThePsychologyofWrittenComposition. Routledge.
[3]
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). CorpusLinguistics: InvestigatingLanguageStructureandUse. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804489
[4]
De Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. (1981). IntroductiontoTextLinguistics. Routledge.
Ennis, R. (1996). CriticalThinking. Prentice Hall.
[7]
Ferris, D. (2003). ResponsetoStudentWriting. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607201
[8]
Firth, J. (1957). PapersinLinguistics. Taylor and Francis Group.
[9]
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing Next. Alliance for Excellent Education.
[10]
Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2008). Lexical Bundles and L2 Academic Writing. In S. Granger, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 127-150). John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.139
[11]
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). CohesioninEnglish. Longman.
[12]
Hoey, M. (2005). LexicalPriming. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0694
[13]
Hyland, K. (2004). GenreandSecondLanguageWriting. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.23927
[14]
Kuhn, D. (2019). CriticalThinkingasDiscourse. Human Development, 62, 146-164. https://doi.org/10.1159/000500171
[15]
McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Computational Assessment of Text Readability and Cohesion. Written Communication, 27, 57-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309351547
[16]
Mir Recio, C. (2023). ArgumentativeWritinginSecondaryEducation: EnhancingCoherenceandCohesioninEFLContexts. Master’s Thesis, University of the Balearic Islands. http://hdl.handle.net/11201/169901
[17]
Nattinger, J., & De Carrico, J. (1992). LexicalPhrasesandLanguageTeaching. Oxford University Press.
[18]
Nesselhauf, N. (2005). CollocationsinaLearnerCorpus. John Benjamins Publishing.
[19]
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). FromCorpustoClassroom. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497650
[20]
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford University Press。
[21]
Sun, Y. (2020). CohesionandCoherenceStudies: Development, ChaosandApplication. Social Sciences, 9, 113-120. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200904.15
[22]
Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press.
[23]
Toulmin, S. (1958). TheUsesofArgument. Cambridge University Press.
