Academic Speaking and the Found Linkers
Photo by Gabrielle Henderson on Unsplash
By David Connolly,
AWC consultant, teacher, editor and translator.
Highlights
• Linkers are (more) common in formal spoken language.
• They make up for the missing visible structure of spoken language.
• As listeners are passive participants, linkers help them follow the text.
• Informal language is less structured and therefore different linkers are used.
Part 1 “The Missing Linkers“ explained why you should avoid “linkers” in your writing and which “cohesive devices” you should use instead. This Part 2 is about when you can and should use “linkers.” However, the term “cohesive devices” is more common no matter what the medium of the text is.
As noted in Part 1, a written text has a visible structure that guides the reader. In our context — academic writing — there are labeled sections and a predictable format, as well as the usual periods at the end of sentences and paragraphs, which typically have one central idea. In spoken language — and I am imagining a presentation about your research, but see below for a more informal example — these are less evident.
Some presenters script their text fully and read it aloud. This is basically a written text presented orally. In other contexts, people may extemporize completely. I am presuming our presentation is something in between: notes that have been prepared and rehearsed but not written out in full. These are often accompanied by PowerPoint slides, but these are mostly images, and I’m ignoring them here.
The other big difference between spoken and written texts is feedback. When speaking with someone, they are — consciously or otherwise — always giving feedback: nodding, looking interested (or not), interrupting, asking questions, saying “yes,” “I see,” or “really?” The speaker, also consciously or otherwise, is always responding to this feedback. The more formal the context, the less feedback there will be. If you are giving a presentation, you are likely to be more focused on the presentation than on the audience and their feedback. (This is why a fully scripted speech is closer to a written text than a spoken one — it does not take feedback into account.)
In Part 1, I was quite dismissive of what I called “linkers.” These are phrases in English that we do use — occasionally — but we use them quite differently than you have probably been taught.
There are three main uses I wish to discuss here: emphasis, warning, and transition.
Emphasis
“Emphasis” is fairly self-explanatory. If some information about your research is very surprising or counterintuitive, then knock yourself out. However, it is important to note that it is not usually important to note. If you say something is important, make sure it is — this will generally be a contrast of some sort. The more things you emphasize, the less the emphasis will be felt. In other words, be sparing with emphasis so that it stands out more.
Examples include: additionally, apart from this, as well (as), in addition, moreover, further, furthermore, in fact, interestingly, indeed, it should be noted (that), more important(ly).
Warning
“Warning” sounds a bit ominous, but it simply means helping the reader navigate what is ahead if it needs it. A typical example is “both.” Your research might include experimental and control groups; there is no reason to say “both the experimental group & control group” here, as “&” is linking two simple phrases. However, if there is a more complex construction (which basically means one with a verb), ”both” can help the reader: “both the experimental group, who had no previous experience with the text & the control group, who read an unrelated text…” There is a large gap between “experimental group” and “&,” so “both” prepares the reader for there being two groups. “Both” is most commonly used as a pronominal adjective: “both groups provided written consent.” In the previous paragraph, I used “in other words” so you, dear reader, would be warned that what followed was a reformulation of what came before. The most common examples are warnings of contrast: however, in contrast, nevertheless, on the other hand, although, despite.
Transition
“Transition” is a particular type of warning — the verbal equivalent of a paragraph or section. “Now I’d like to talk about…,” “Next.” In Part 1, I noted that ellipsis is a key cohesive device. The spoken equivalent is the pause, which serves as a transitional device. Speakers unconsciously use progressively longer pauses where they would use a comma, period, or paragraph in writing. Other examples include the use of numbers (“I’d like to make three points here today”); lists (“first,” “second,” “third”); and phrases such as “by way of introduction,” “in conclusion,” and “finally.”
The proverbial watercooler chat with colleagues about research you are working on is a less formal context and will be unplanned, therefore less “organized” than a more formal presentation. You will be thinking in sentences rather than the paragraphs of a presentation. Such conversations also allow for interruptions, as you have an interlocutor, which means you share control. The linkers here will be more emotional and less formal:
Eliciting feedback: “Do you see? Is that clear?”
Dramatic effect: “You can’t imagine what happened next!,” “disappointingly,” “unbelievably”
Trigger phrases: “I mean,” “anyway” — these tend to be individual and almost invisible and act as transitions.
I would like to emphasize here that linkers will only be effective if the text itself is logically organized. Linkers, whether spoken or written, do not give your text structure; they can only highlight the structure that is inherent in the text. They give the listener no information about your topic. They act as signposts. Imagine visiting a museum where there was more information about the layout of the exhibits than there were exhibits — and use linkers sparingly.