View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

The Use of Textual Patterns in Reading

Keiko MUTO-HUMPHREY

1. Introduction
Much has been written over the past three decades regarding the use
of textual patterning (van Dijk 1977; Hoey 1983, 1994: and McCarthy
1991). Since English instruction in Japanese high schools has tended to
be of a traditional nature, the employment of a methodology incorporat-
ing the teaching of discourse patterns has been somewhat neglected. As
Cook points out, a good deal of language teaching has tended to focus
on the bottom-up approach: focusing mainly on vocabulary acquisition
(Cook 1989). Needless to say, reading English requires that L2 learners are
able to understand the discourse. Is it possible then, to understand written
discourse from their considerably large-sized vocabulary built up through
the six years of hard memorization that took place during high school?
This is one of the biggest problems for L2 learners to encounter while
learning English. It often happens that they can read a text aloud and know
all words used in it, but they cannot understand its overall message. This
means that they cannot make coherence of the text. It should be noted,
therefore, that it is necessary for L2 learners to learn how to identify the
coherence of discourse. As summed up by McCarthy, “finding patterns in
texts is a matter of interpretation by the reader, making use of clues and
signals provided by the author” (McCarthy 1991: 161).
 Learning the structure of English discourse is essential to L2 learners,
because discourse is “more than just language use; it is language use,
whether speech or written, seen as a type of social practice” (Fairclough
1992: 28). Therefore, understanding discourse means understanding real
English, which is used in society. With this knowledge, it can be expected
that “this tacit knowledge may enable [students] to communicate success-
fully” (Cook 1989: 49).
The aim of this paper is to consider how effective the knowledge of textual
patterns is concerning L2 learners’ reading ability. In the following section,
the Literature Review (Section 2), ‘discourse analysis’ will be discussed,
including the major textual patterns: Problem-solution, General-specific, and
Counter-Counter-claim. Following the Methodology (Section 3), Analysis
and Discussion (Section 4) will be dealt with. This will investigate how
a knowledge of textual patterns may help L2 learners’ reading. For this
purpose, a section from an authentic text (short story) was used in an
American Literature seminar class, and later employed for the analysis
in this study. Textual patterns will be determined through this analysis,
the results of which will be presented as a diagrammatic representation
in Section 5.

2. Literature Review
2.1 Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis can be divided into two types: micro-analysis and
macro-analysis. Fairclough (1992) states that the former is to explain “pre-
cisely how participants produce and interpret texts on the basis of their
members’ resources” and the latter is “to know the nature of the members’
resource […] that is being drawn upon in order to produce and interpret
texts” (Fairclough 1992: 85). Micro-analysis focuses on vocabulary and
grammar including cohesive relations and grammatical regularities. For
instance, Halliday and Hasan (1976) develop lexical collocation at the
textual level. Macro-analysis investigates the organization of texts such
as patterns and types. In this strategy, the delicate relationship between
language forms and particular contexts and its users is discussed (Mc-
Carthy 1991). Given that (1) the micro-analysis seems to have a longer
tradition (rather than the macro-analysis (Brown and Yule 1983)); and (2)
the teaching of grammar and vocabulary seems to be more focused on
at school, it is necessary to consider the knowledge of text organization
to be very effective for L2 learners in improving their English ability.
This is because a number of different texts show that “there is a distinct
preference for certain ways of organizing and presenting information, and
that some rhetorical or discourse patterns tend to recur with a regularity
which cannot be coincidental” (Holland and Johnson 2000: 14). Hence,
learning text patterns can be expected to enable L2 learners to decode the
spoken/written text at the level of macro structure. This, however, does not
mean that one of them will be more effective than the other in teaching
English to L2 learners. McCarthy indicates;

The main point is that macro-patterns themselves do not seem to be lacking

once reasonable general competence has been achieved, and that where the
macro-patterns are absent, there seem to be basic clause- and sentence-level
problems that demand higher priority in teaching. (McCarthy 1991: 166)

For the purpose of interpreting texts, the knowledge of macro-analysis,

as well as that of micro-analysis can be said to be efficient. That is, the
lexical and grammatical aspect and the aspect of the textual pattern are
significant to teach English to L2 learners. As Fairclough claims, it should
be recognised that “micro- and macro-analysis are […] mutual requisites”
(Fairclough 1998: 86).

2.2 Signaling of textual patterns

2.2.1 Vocabulary as a signal of textual patterns
Winter (1977) shows that the relationship between clauses can be signaled
by three types of vocabulary: Vocabulary 1 such as subordination; Vocabulary
2 such as sentence connectors; and Vocabulary 3 such as lexical items.
The last one, Vocabulary 3 is crucial to understanding text organization,
although his main concern is the operation of lexical signaling at the level
of the paragraph. He expresses as follows;

I have included the following five items which represent a larger clause-
relation in English. My reason for doing so is that these relations may
sometimes exist as clause relations within the unit of the paragraph. The
items are situation, problem, solution, observation, and evaluation. (Winter
1977: 19)

Although he focuses on the function of vocabulary, this can also explain

the structure of the text. For instance, ‘crisis’ implies that a sentence in-
cluding it suggests a ‘problem,’ which will be discussed in the text, and
the word ‘decision’ implies a ‘solution’ to it. In this way, particular words
in a text can act as a signal to identify textual patterns. In other words,
L2 learners can reach text organization through an understanding of how
vocabulary functions.
It is, however, necessary to understand that identifying textual patterns
should be influenced by the vocabulary size of each L2 learner. A poor
command of vocabulary cannot make it possible for L2 learners to recognise
that a certain word can be a signal to a textual property. Moreover, not only
learning the meanings of each word, but also learning the cohesive relations
of words is important in raising learners’ consciousness to identify textual
patterns. It is this cohesive relationship between ‘crisis’ and ‘problem’
which makes it possible to recognise that a sentence, containing the word
‘crisis,’ should suggest a problem. As a result, lexical knowledge can be
considered to be an essential element in identifying textual patterns.

2.2.2 Schemata
Discourse does not explain all detailed information to readers, and Cook
(1994) offers a good example to explain it. For instance, when a person is
requested to explain what he/she did during the morning, he/she explains
as follows;

I woke up at seven forty. I made some toast and a cup of tea. I listened to
the news. And I left for work at about eight thirty. (Cook 1994: 12)

This will be recognised as a sufficient description in explaining what he/she

did. More detailed information will not need to be added to it, such as “I
was in bed. I was wearing pajamas” (Cook 1994: 12) after the first sentence.
This means that discourse permits some information to be omitted, and
readers are expected to fill in the gaps with their imagination. They have
to presume what is missing and determine the coherence of the context. It
is the reader’s experience and knowledge that makes it possible to make up
for the missing information. This phenomenon can be explained through
schema theory. McCarthy describes it as follows;

The theory is that new knowledge can only be processed coherently in

 relation to existing knowledge frameworks, and that the efficient reader
activates the necessary frameworks to assist in decoding the text being
read. (McCarthy 1991: 168)

This means that the readers interpret the text with reference to general
knowledge in society, as well as lexical knowledge. One aspect of gen-
eral knowledge is concerning textual patterns. Learning typical patterns
of organization in texts makes it easier for L2 learners to predict how a
text will develop, and in doing so they can be expected to understand the
context more precisely. That is to say, once textual patterns are recognised,
the L2 learners’ reading ability can be improved effectively.
There is, however, an important problem to be considered: L2 learners
cannot always be expected to share the cultural and social experience
with native speakers. L2 learners are social outsiders of a different kind.
Hence, it is requisite to learn the cultural background in order to raise the
language ability. This should be the readers’ experience and knowledge,
which is effective in determining the coherence of discourse.

2.3 Textual patterns

There are mainly three patterns of text organization (McCarthy 1991;
Holland and Johnson 2000): Problem-Solution, General-Specific, and Claim-
Counter-claim (or Hypothetical-Real). Here, each pattern of text organization
shall be discussed, although Problem-Solution and General-Specific will
be mainly used in the analysis in 4.2.

2.3.1 Problem-Solution Pattern

In his article, Hoey (1994) introduces the main stream of discourse
analysis structure. According to him, any genre of text, such as the plots
of fairytales, or the writing of scientists, includes ‘the problem-solution
structure’ (Hoey 1994: 27). He explains this by breaking a short passage
consisting of four sentences, and rearranging the sentences in proper order
without any signaling expressing a time sequence.

I was on sentry duty. I saw the enemy approaching. I opened fire. I beat
off the enemy attack. (Hoey 1994: 28)

He claims that there is a sort of regularity to make this order of sentences:

‘the problem-solution structure.’ That is, the discourse consists of the four
main parts: Situation → Problem → Response → Evaluation (Hoey 1994:
28). It is noteworthy that it is not vocabulary such as nouns and conjunctions
that decide this order, but rather ‘text cohesion.’ The question, however, is
how he could identify the property in each sentence. Schema theory (See
2.2.2), dictates that L2 learners discover text structure according to their
own experience. In addition to it, Hoey advocates “projection into dialogue”
(Hoey 1994: 28). This is derived from the idea that a monologue can be
regarded as a dialogue in which a writer assumes replies from readers while
writing it. That is, each sentence can be recognised as a writer’s answer
to a question (from the reader), such as “what is the situation/problem/
solution/result?” Hoey’s sample texts can be decoded as follows;

A: What was the situation?

B: I was on sentry duty.
A: What was the problem?
B: I saw the enemy approaching.
A: What was your solution?
B: I opened fire.
A: What was the result? And how successful was this?
 B: I beat off the enemy attack.
(Hoey 1994: 30)

Although it is necessary to understand that a number of questions can be

provided according to each segment, it is considerably effective to give a
possible question to each one for the purpose of determining the property
of sentences.

2.3.2 General-Specific Pattern

The basic structure of this pattern is that text includes “an initial general
statement, followed by a series of (progressively) more specific statements,
culminating in a further generalization” (Holland and Johnson 2000: 21). In a
typical case, a passage including a general statement is followed by another
passage, which expands the generalization, such as exemplifying, explaining,
and/or justifying. McCarthy offers diagrammatic representations:

General statement General statement

↓ ↓
Specific statement 1 Specific statement 1
↓ ↓
Specific statement 2 Even more specific
↓ ↓
Specific statement 3 Even more specific
↓ ↓
etc etc
↓ ↓
General statement General statement

(McCarthy 1991: 158)

2.3.3 Claim-Counter-claim Pattern

The third textual pattern consists of a series of claims and contrasting
counterclaims, which is presented on a given topic: Claim 1 → Counter-
claim 1 → Claim 2 Counter-claim 2 → … This pattern can be found
more frequently “in political journalism, as well as in the letters-to-the-
editor pages of newspapers and magazines” (McCarthy 1991: 161), and
also “the stock-in-trade of many a ‘Compare and Contrast …’ academic
essay” (Holland and Johnson 2000: 23). For the purpose of identifying the
textual pattern, lexical signals are very useful. For instance, through lexical
items, such as claim, assert, truth, false, in fact, ‘segments’ containing
them, can be identified as elements of the ‘Claim-Counter-claim’ structure.
Jordan (1984) provides a sample list of 31 lexical items, which can be
signals of this textual pattern, including: according to, apparently, believe,
estimate, evidently, imagine, likely, might, perhaps, probably, seem, and
suggest (Jordan 1984: 148).

3. Methodology
The text analysed here is a passage cited from a short novel by Edgar
Allan Poe, ‘The Cask of Amontillado’ (1846) (shown in 4.1). This short
story was used in an American Literature seminar class by 15 students
(female n=9; male n=6) at a university in Nagoya, Japan. Subjects were
English majors, aged 20-22, and were generally considered to be motivated
to learn English. In class, students were requested to read the story and
discuss their interpretation (student-student).

3.1 The aim of the analysis

This short story seemed to be difficult for the subjects to read. This is
largely due to the fact that they could not construct the (overall) coher-
ence of the story with their lexical knowledge, even though they could
understand the meanings of each individual word being used (the use of
dictionaries was permitted).
In fiction, generally speaking, it is not possible to expect authors to
provide readers directly with all the information needed to comprehend the
story. Therefore, readers have to provide the missing information with their
imagination, anaphoric information, and their own experience. As discussed
above, reading the text with the aid of textual patterns can be expected
to help L2 learners create the coherence of a text. “One of the skills of
efficient readers of English is the ability to recognise typical patterns of
organization in the texts” (McCarthy and Carter 1994: 58). The discourse
analysis done here is a trial to help L2 learners interpret the short story
at the level of textual structure, as well as at the lexical level.

4. Analysis and Discussion

4.1 The discourse for analysis
The opening section (the first two paragraphs) of the story is shown
below. Sentences are numbered for ease of reference.

[1] The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could; [2]
but when he ventured upon insult, [3] I vowed revenge. [4] You who so
well know the nature of my soul, will not suppose, however, that I gave
utterance to a threat. [5] A length I would be avenged; [6] this was a
point definitely settled — [7] but the very definitiveness with which it was
resolved precluded the idea of risk. [8] I must not only punish, but punish
with impunity. [9] A wrong is unredressed [10] when retribution overtakes
its redresser. [11] It is equally unredressed [12] when the avenger fails to
make himself felt as such to him who has done the wrong.
[13] It must be understood that neither by word nor deed had I given
Fortunato cause to doubt my good-will. [14] I continued, as was my wont,
to smile in his face, and [15] he did not perceive that my smile now was
at the thought of his immolation.
4.2 Analysis of the discourse: the major structure
4.2.1 Analysis of the major structure
The text shown above is explaining why the narrator ‘I’ decides to kill his
friend Fortunato and how ‘I’ is going to do it. According to Hoey’s (1994)
projection of monologue into dialogue (See 2.3.1), five major elements of
the Problem-solution pattern can be identified as follows;

Situation
Q: What was the situation?
A: [1] The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could.
Problem
Q: What was the problem?
A: [2] [when] he ventured upon insult.
Response to problem
Q: What was your response to the problem?
A: [3] I vowed revenge. [4] You who so well know the nature of my
soul, will not suppose, however, that I gave utterance to a threat.
[5] At length I would be avenged; [6] this was a point definitely
settled — [7] but the very definitiveness with which it was resolved
precluded the idea of risk. [8] I must not only punish, but punish
with impunity.
Result of response
Q: What did you do as a solution of the response?
A: [13] It must be understood that neither by word nor deed had I given
Fortunato cause to doubt my good-will. [14] I continued, as was my
wont, to smile in his face.
Evaluation of result of response
Q: What was the result? Or how successful was this?
A: [15] he did not perceive that my smile now was at the thought of
his immolation.

This shows that it is possible to change the monologue into a dialogue.

It is shown, therefore, that the text analysed here contains the problem-
solution structure.

4.2.2 Discussion of the major structure

The first question determines the situational statement. Normally, it would
be natural for the noun in the first sentence to be marked by the indefinite
article, since the main use of the definite article (in this case) would be
to indicate anaphoric reference. In the case of literary narratives, however,
especially in the opening sentences, the tendency is to use the definite
article as a determiner in noun phrases of which neither refer to earlier
indefinite noun phrases, nor default elements of schema. Cook explains the
phenomenon as two characteristic devices of narratives: (1) for the purpose
of making readers accept the discourse as though the relevant schema were
shared with the narrator or characters when in fact it is unknown; and (2)
for the purpose of giving readers a kind of unwarranted intimacy to make
them construct the necessary schema as quickly as possible (Cook 1994).
This means that the first phrase in the first sentence [1], ‘The thousand
injuries,’ works as a signal of the introductory clue to the story for the
reader. In addition to this, ‘the’ transforms a general noun ‘injury’ into a
more significant word, which should have a specific meaning later in the
story. Hence, readers are offered a certain situation in which the story is
developing. Moreover, the past perfect tense is also a signal to suggest the
situation of the story. The phrase, ‘had borne,’ introduces the background
of ‘I’ to the reader. By this information, the reader can gain the necessary
situational information to begin the story.
The second question requires the situational statement [1] to develop and
introduce a concrete aspect of the problem. A co-ordinating conjunction
‘but,’ leading [2], lets readers predict that something is going to happen,
and ‘when’ specifies a certain occasion when it actually happens. Through
these signal words, it can be concluded that [2] suggests a problem which
will be dealt with later in the text.
The third question identifies the actual response to the problem. Since
there should be a concrete act to the problem, it is expected to be strongly
connected to [2]. In this case, a subordinate conjunction, ‘when’ in [2], is
very useful in determining a response to the problem, since the conjunction
leads to an immediate response in the subordinate clause. Therefore, [3]
can be recognised as a response to [2]. Moreover, it is possible to make a
cohesive relation between ‘revenge’ in [3] and ‘insult’ in [2]. These signals
make it possible to consider [3] as a response to [2]. It is interesting to
consider that the reader is involved in the story intentionally by the narrator
in [4]. ‘You’ and ‘so well’ request them to share the information, that “I
[did not give] utterance to a threat,” with the narrator; and the present
tense of [4] suggests that the shared information is not gained now, but
had been gained earlier on. Thus, the narrator involves his readers into his
story intentionally, and lets them understand how serious his plan is. The
segments [5] to [8] are developed from [3]. ‘At length’ and ‘would’ in
[7] show the narrator’s strong intention to his plan, and it is emphasised
more insistently by ‘this’ and ‘definitively’ in [6]. Although ‘but’ is a
co-ordinating conjunction, the following segment [7] does not contrast
with the previous segment [6]. Rather the lexical repetition of ‘defini-
tively’ and ‘definitiveness,’ and the word ‘resolved’ put greater emphasis
on the narrator’s will. The segment [8] also declares his strong decision,
although it is different to others in terms of tense: it is expressed in the
present tense. (This problem regarding tense will be discussed in 4.3.1.)
As a result, it is possible to make a minor textual relation in ‘Response
to problem’ as follows;
 Main response to problem [3]

Additional response Additional response

to main response to to main response to
problem [4] problem [8]

Additional response Additional response

to main response to to main response to
Additional response
problem [5] problem [7]
to main response to
problem [6]

This diagrammatic representation shows that there is a substructure in

‘Response to the problem’; [4] to [8] work as assistant segments of [3].
A solution, which is requested by the forth question, should be an actual
response to [2] and a more practical reaction from the decision made in
[3]. In the second paragraph, [13] to [15], the narrator lets the reader in
on his plan. This follows the first paragraph which provides a background
to the whole story. As a result of the response in [3], the character ‘I’
decides to execute his revenge. [13] + [14] show the actual action made
by ‘I.’ ‘[C]ontinue’ in [14] suggests that this character’s plan is carried
out: in other words, his plan has been initiated here.
It may be considered that [15] does not estimate the result of the
character’s decision, which is shown in [13] + [14], and it may be able
to be recognised as another result to his response. The question, which
identifies the segment ‘Evaluation of result of response’ in 4.2.1, asks
whether the narrator can gain satisfaction from the result of his action.
Considering that the phrase ‘he did not perceive’ in [15] meaning what
‘I’ hoped, it is obvious that the narrator was delighted with his friend’s
response. Hence, [15] can be recognised as the part expressing an evalu-
ation of the narrator’s plan, thus making his intention successful. It can
be concluded, therefore, that the text has a problem-solution pattern as its
major structure. With the aid of these clues, the coherence of this structure
can be shown as follows;

Situation [1]

Problem as a specific aspect

of situation [2]

Additional response to
Response to problem as a specific
main response to problem
aspect of situation [3]
[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Result of response to problem as a

specific aspect of situation [13] [14]

Evaluation of result of response to problem

as a specific aspect of situation [15]

This diagrammatic representation shows that segments [9] to [12], between

‘Result of response’ and ‘Response to problem,’ are omitted. Considering
the property of the segments, they can be recognised as elements to explain
‘Response to problem’ ([3] to [8]). It can be seen that they are related
with ‘Response to problem’ due to the cohesive relation: revenge – threat
– avenge – risk – punish – redresser. It is noteworthy, however, that it
is difficult to connect [9] to [12] with [13] + [14] lexically, as well as
coherently. This may explain why L2 learners could not construct coher-
ence from the text; the segments [9] to [12] make it difficult for learners
to follow the story’s development. How these segments are related to the
structure pattern will now be discussed.
4.3 Analysis of discourse: the minor structure
It is not unusual that the major structure contains several other minor
structures. “It is important to realise that structuring a text using one pat-
tern does not in any way preclude other forms of patterning” (Holland
and Johnson 2000: 27). That is, any text can contain more than one of the
textual patterns. In case of the text analysed in this paper, a minor structure
can be determined in its main structure, ‘Problem-solution’ pattern.

4.3.1 Analysis and discussion of the minor structure

As mentioned in 4.2.2, the segments [9] to [12] are distinctively differ-
ent to other segments in the text. They are expressed in the present tense,
although there are some exceptions in other segments, such as [4] and the
beginning part of [13]; and the word ‘wrong’ mentioned in [9] + [10] does
not mean the bad behaviour of the narrator’s friend. This difference has the
effect of making the discourse harder for the students to comprehend, and
separates it from other parts of the text. In other words, what is mentioned
in [9] to [12] is diverted from the main stream of coherence.
The segments [9] to [12] can be determined to make the ‘General-specific’
pattern. As mentioned in 2.3.2, this structure consists of a general statement
and a specific statement. When considering that a general statement should
contain common information, which can be shared by other people, it is
natural for the statement to be described in the present tense with the third
person. Hence, the sentence [9]+[10] can be recognised as a general state-
ment. The indefinite article indicates that the following word ‘wrong’ is a
general noun; and the present tense informs the reader that the context does
not share the same time frame as other segments. This general statement
is followed by another general statement [11]+[12]. The second statement
[11]+[12] contains several elements to show that it follows on from the first
one. The pronoun, ‘such’ and personal pronouns ‘himself’ and ‘him,’ as
well as the definite article prove that [11]+[12] contain anaphoric phrases,
and the repetition of the sentence structure, ‘S1 + is + C when S2 + V +
O,’ also shows [9]+[10] and [11]+[12] to be strongly related. Moreover,
‘equally’ can be considered as signaling their strong connection. The word
suggests that the following sentence should add more information to the
previous sentence. As a result, [9]+[10] and [11]+[12] can be considered
to have the same property: providing a general statement.
It is noteworthy that [9]+[10] and [11]+[12] follow another sentence
in the present tense, [8]. Although [8] can be recognised as a part of the
‘Response to problem’ in the Problem-solution structure (see 4.2.2), it is
different to other segments of the structure in terms of tense. The present
tense in [8] implies that it is related to [9]+[10] and [11]+[12]. Although
[9]+[10] and [11]+[12] are general statements, [8] can be identified as
a specific statement. The subject of [8] specifies the act ‘punish’ as the
narrator’s personal activity, while [9]+[10] and [11]+[12] deal with the
act ‘unredress (a cohesive relation can be found among ‘punish’ – ‘re-
dress’ – ‘unredress’) as a general act. This relationship has the opposite
sequence in structure to what McCarthy indicates (see 2.3.2). From the
text analysed in this paper, it can be seen that one specific statement leads
to two general statements. The diagrammatic representation (below) shows
that it is necessary to convert the basic structure of the ‘General-specific
pattern’ in order to make the discourse coherent; meaning that the textual
pattern structure needs to be flexible. The segments [8] to [12] can form
the following structure.
 A specific statement [8]

A general statement 1
[9] [10]

A general statement 2
[11] [12]

Let us now consider the relationships between [9] & [10], and [11] &
[12]. The conjunction ‘when’ usually makes a conditional sentence, and
in this case, a subordinate clause shows its response. That is, it is possible
to determine a part of the structure ‘Problem-solution pattern’ in a when-
clause sentence. [9] can be recognised as a ‘structure/problem’, and [10]
as a ‘response to structure/problem.’ The same pattern can be identified
in the relationship between [11] and [12], showing that it is possible to
make several structures with the same segments. As a result, the structure
of [8] to [12] is formed as follows.

A specific statement [8]

A general statement 1 [9] [10]

Situation/problem [9]

Response to situation/
problem [10]

A general statement 2 [11] [12]

Situation/problem [11]

Response to situation/
problem [12]
When the idea, that the discourse can contain several structures at the
same time, is applied to the whole text, another ‘general-specific’ structure
can be determined. The first paragraph, consisting of [1] to [12], provides
general knowledge to the reader, which is necessary in understanding the
narrator’s background. On the other hand, the second paragraph, consist-
ing of [13] to [15], develops the narrator’s actual action. That is, the first
paragraph can be a general statement, while the second paragraph can be
a specific statement.

A general statement
[1] to [12]

A specific statement
[13] to [15]

In this structure, the specific statement does not lead to another general
statement like the basic structure shown by McCarthy (See 2.3.2). This may
be because the text, analysed here, is the two opening paragraphs quoted
from the whole story. Labov (1999) explains that the basic stream of a
fully-formed narrative is Abstract → Orientation → Complicating action
→ Evaluation → Result or resolution → Coda, though it is necessary to
change some of the elements according to types of narrative. It is possible
to consider that the text cited here is a part of the large structure. Although
it is not possible to complete the ‘General-specific’ structure in the text, it
can be expected to develop in the remainder of the story.
5. Result
As a result of the analysis and the discussion of textual patterns de-
termined in 4.2 and 4.3, the ‘Problem-solution’ pattern can be identified
as the overall (major) structure and the ‘General-specific’ pattern can be
identified as the subordinate (minor) structure. The ‘Claim-Counter-claim’
pattern cannot be determined in the text.
The overall text structure, discussed in 4.2 and 4.3, can be built as
follows (solid lines represent ‘Problem-solution’ structure and dotted lines
represent ‘General-specific’ structure);







4JUVBUJPO
<>
"EEJUJPOBM
SFTQPOTF
UP
NBJO

SFTQPOTF
UP
QSPCMFN
<>

1SPCMFN
BT
B
TQFDJàD
BTQFDU
PG
"EEJUJPOBM
SFTQPOTF
UP
NBJO

TJUVBUJPO
<>

SFTQPOTF
UP
QSPCMFN
<>

"EEJUJPOBM
SFTQPOTF
UP
NBJO

3FTQPOTF
UP
QSPCMFN
BT
B
SFTQPOTF
UP
QSPCMFN

<>


TQFDJàD
BTQFDU
PG
TJUVBUJPO
<>



"EEJUJPOBM
SFTQPOTF
UP
NBJO

SFTQPOTF
UP
QSPCMFN
<>

"EEJUJPOBM
SFTQPOTF
UP
NBJO

SFTQPOTF
UP
QSPCMFN
<>

4QFDJàD
TUBUFNFOU
<>

(FOFSBM
TUBUFNFOU


<>
<>


4PMVUJPOQSPCMFN
<>

3FTQPOTF
UP
TPMVUJPOQSPCMFN
<>

(FOFSBM

TUBUFNFOU
PG

UIF
XIPMF
TUPSZ

<>
UP
<>



(FOFSBM
TUBUFNFOU

<>
<>

4PMVUJPOQSPCMFN
<>

3FTQPOTF
UP
TPMVUJPOQSPCMFN
<>

3FTVMU
PG
SFTQPOTF
UP
QSPCMFN
BT
B

TQFDJàD
BTQFDU
PG
TJUVBUJPO
<>
<>

4QFDJàD

TUBUFNFOU
PG
UIF

&WBMVBUJPO
PG
SFTVMU
PG
SFTQPOTF
UP
XIPMF
TUPSZ
<>

QSPCMFN
BT
B
TQFDJàD
BTQFDU
PG
UP
<>


TJUVBUJPO
<>

5IF
SFNBJOEFS
PG
UIF
TUPSZ

6. Conclusion
In this paper, discussion was based on the analysis of authentic material,
which had actually been used in a seminar class. This was done for the
purpose of finding possible solutions to problems, which L2 learners had
encountered in reading. Since they had no trouble concerning vocabulary
and grammar while reading the text, it is my belief that the cause of the
problem stemmed from an insufficient knowledge of textual structure.
In the discussion, learning textual patterns was concluded to be an effective
method for L2 learners in improving their reading ability. It is my contention
that when students are able to identify discourse patterns, they can predict
what follows and how the text will develop. This tacit knowledge can be
expected to make it easier for L2 learners to understand the text through
the use of textual patterns, namely: ‘Problem-solution,’ ‘General-specific,’
and ‘Claim-counter-claim’ patterns. McCarthy (1991) indicates that finding
patterns in texts is “a matter of interpretation by the reader, making use
of clues and signals provided by the author” (McCarthy 1991: 161). Good
readers (at least) are constantly attending to the segments of discourse that
determine textual patterns. In fact, the analysis of this paper showed that
the text also contains ‘Problem-solution’ patterns. Moreover, the finding
of another textual pattern, ‘General-specific’ pattern explains that texts are
capable of containing several textual patterns at the same time. Although
it is easy to provide L2 learners with a knowledge of textual patterns, the
problem is in teaching students how to identify them. It may require time
to practice and apply such knowledge to actual reading. Learning discourse
patterns means understanding conventional and culturally characteristic
patterns of the language. In addition to ‘text structural knowledge’ and
‘lexical knowledge,’ L2 learners should, therefore, be encouraged to gain
a ‘cultural knowledge’ of their target language and in doing so make it a
useful strategy in improving their reading skills as a whole.

References
Brown, G. and G. Yule (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Cook, G. (1994). Discourse and Literature: the Interplay of Form and Mind. Oxford,
Oxford University Press.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, Polity Press.
Francis, G. (1986). Anaphoric Nouns. Birmingham, University of Birmingham.
Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan (1976). Cohesion in English. London, Longman.
Hoey, M. (1983). On the Surface of Discourse. London, Allen and Unwin.
Hoey, M. (1994). ‘Signalling in discourrse: a functional analysis of a common dis-
course pattern in written and spoken English’. Advances in Written Text Analysis.
M. Coulthard. London, Routledge: 26–45.
Holland, R. and A. Johnson (2000). ‘Patterning in Texts’. Written Discourse. Bir-
mingham, The University of Birmingham: 11–28.
Jordan (1984). Rhetoric of Everyday English Texts. London, Allen and Unwin.
Labov, W. (1999). ‘The transformation of experience in narrative’. The Discourse
Reader. A. Jaworski and N. Coupland. London, Routledge: 221–235.
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge, Cam-
bridge University Press.
McCarthy, M. and R. A. Carter (1994). Language as Discourse: Perspectives for
Language Teaching. London, Longman.
Poe, E. A. (1846). ‘The Cask of Amontillado’. Selected Works of Edgar Allan Poe
(1991). New York, Time Warner Libraries: 335–342.
van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics
of Discourse. London, Longman.
Winter, E. O. (1977). “A clause-relational approach to English texts: a study of some
predictive lexical items in written discourse.” Instructional 6 (1): 1–92.