Learning goals

I can reconstruct relationships in long discourse when cohesion is lexical, referential, or implicit rather than overtly signposted.
I can shape a long spoken or written text so major and subsidiary ideas remain easy to follow.
I can reorganise dispersed material into a coherent structure suited to a new recipient and purpose.

What you will be able to do

I can reconstruct relationships in long discourse when cohesion is lexical, referential, or implicit rather than overtly signposted.
Skill
reception
I can shape a long spoken or written text so major and subsidiary ideas remain easy to follow.
Skill
production
I can connect my contribution to earlier points, reopen a thread, and synthesise several turns without repetition.
Skill
interaction
I can reorganise dispersed material into a coherent structure suited to a new recipient and purpose.
Skill
mediation
I can diagnose a coherence failure and revise global structure rather than merely edit sentences.
Skill
strategies
I can compare how organisation and explicitness change across genres or discourse communities without ranking one as inherently superior.
Skill
pluricultural competence

Core vocabulary

a point of departure

The idea from which an extended account develops.

The access problem is our point of departure, not the purchase date.

retrospectively

From a later position that changes how earlier events are understood.

Retrospectively, the catalogue delay appears central rather than incidental.

this distinction

A reference to a specific contrast that must remain identifiable.

This distinction between ownership and permission governs the recommendation.

by contrast

Signals a meaningful difference between comparable ideas.

The public catalogue, by contrast, contains descriptions rather than unrestricted files.

a subsidiary issue

A question that supports but does not replace the central argument.

The scanner model is a subsidiary issue in a discussion of access rights.

the latter constraint

The second of two previously identified restrictions.

The latter constraint concerns permission, not storage capacity.

to return to

Reopens an earlier thread while explaining its present relevance.

To return to the access question, a searchable record is not permission to copy.

in that respect

Restricts a comparison to a stated aspect.

In that respect, the two catalogues solve different problems.

an organising principle

The logic that determines what comes first and what supports it.

Audience decisions provide a better organising principle than a list of purchases.

a reverse outline

A map of what each existing paragraph actually does.

The reverse outline reveals three introductions and no developed conclusion.

Meaning through delivery

Use pauses to mark changes in argumentative level. Give a recovered referent full stress before shortening it to this, that or it again.

The access problem is our point of departure, not the purchase date.
Retrospectively, the catalogue delay appears central rather than incidental.
This distinction between ownership and permission governs the recommendation.
The public catalogue, by contrast, contains descriptions rather than unrestricted files.
The scanner model is a subsidiary issue in a discussion of access rights.
The latter constraint concerns permission, not storage capacity.
To return to the access question, a searchable record is not permission to copy.
In that respect, the two catalogues solve different problems.
Audience decisions provide a better organising principle than a list of purchases.
The reverse outline reveals three introductions and no developed conclusion.

Extended listening · An archive project tells its history in the wrong order

First listen for the situation and stance. Then record details, inference and uncertainty separately. Attempt the questions before revealing the transcript.

Why does the February date matter argumentatively?
What does “the latter” refer to in the original account?
What should a seminar intervention connect?
Why check references after structural revision?

Listening notes

Transcript

You have read a project history that opens with a scanner and closes with a request log. The opening object is concrete and memorable, but it may lead the audience to expect a story about equipment performance. The eventual recommendation concerns decision ownership. Unless the speaker makes that movement intelligible, listeners may experience the conclusion as a change of subject rather than the resolution of a problem.

Try reconstructing the account around three questions. What did participants mean by access? What did each stage actually make possible? Which unresolved decision should determine the next stage? Chronological details then become evidence within that structure. February matters because the equipment was ordered before the requirement was clear, not merely because it came before March.

Reference creates a second difficulty. The account says that two constraints became visible and that the latter could not be removed by reducing file sizes. The latter refers to unchecked permissions. If a summary rearranges those sentences, the same phrase may suddenly point to the wrong constraint. Cohesion is therefore not a set of reusable linking expressions. It depends on the relationship between expressions and their position in a particular text.

In a seminar, you can make similar connections across several speakers. Suppose one participant praises image quality, another asks about public downloads, and a third discusses permission. A useful intervention does not repeat all three contributions. It distinguishes preservation quality, access to files and authority to reuse them, then asks which decision the group is trying to make. This recovers an organising principle without dismissing any speaker.

For the revision task, first build a reverse outline of the existing text. Next create the outline your new reader actually needs. Record the reasons for major moves, and recheck pronouns after moving sentences. Your eight-minute talk should not read out that editing log. It should allow listeners to follow the resulting structure. Ask a partner to sketch the argument from memory: what they connect, and what they leave disconnected, will show whether your organisation has reached them.

Reading and source dossier

Read all source cards. Track authorship, purpose, definitions and limitations. Cite source and paragraph IDs in the answers. All sources are fictional practice material.

All source people, organisations, figures and quotations in this pack are invented for learning.

S1 · Project account submitted for review

Archive project writer

Invented for this course. Not a real organisation, study, quotation or public announcement. Cite the source ID within this exercise only.

[1] The scanner arrived in February, although the question it was supposed to settle had been raised the previous autumn. At the opening meeting, participants spoke of making the collection available. Some meant allowing researchers to search descriptions from home; others meant allowing anyone to download high-resolution files. No minute recorded that distinction. The equipment order was approved before either meaning had been converted into a specific access requirement.

[2] The first catalogue was complete in June. It contained descriptions and low-resolution reference images for two hundred objects. The files themselves had already been stored on an internal drive in March, and this was subsequently described as the beginning of online access. That description was inaccurate: the drive was not accessible outside the project room. In the writer's defence, the internal catalogue had genuinely changed how volunteers found material. It had not changed what an external user could obtain.

[3] Two constraints then became visible. Some images were too large for the proposed public interface, while permissions for a separate group of objects had not been checked. The latter constraint could not be removed by reducing file sizes. This distinction matters because the July report presented both problems as technical delays. The revised report must separate them before discussing cost.

[4] Only after a researcher tried to request an object in August did the missing decision become unavoidable. The request could be found quickly, yet nobody knew whether a copy could be supplied or who was authorised to decide. The team introduced a request log in September. It was modest, inexpensive and less visually impressive than the scanner, but it finally identified the responsible person. The next stage should therefore begin with a clear account of user decisions, not another equipment specification.

S2 · Meeting note after the first external request

Access working group

Invented for this course. Not a real organisation, study, quotation or public announcement. Cite the source ID within this exercise only.

[1] The group agreed that discoverability, access to a reference image, permission to receive a file and permission to reuse that file are four separate matters. Improving one does not automatically improve the others. The proposed request log will identify the object, the intended use, the decision owner and the status of the request. It will not publish personal contact information in the catalogue.

[2] The discussion repeatedly returned to the scanner. Its advocates pointed out that it produced files of sufficient quality for preservation work. No participant disputed that observation. The unresolved question was whether the next expenditure would address the main obstacle faced by external users. A technically successful purchase can remain a poor organising principle for an account of a service.

[3] The group asked the writer to produce two versions of the project history. A chronological record is needed for internal accountability: it should show when decisions and purchases occurred. A decision-oriented briefing is needed for the next review: it should show which user need each stage addressed, what remains unresolved and who can act. Neither genre is inherently superior. Their purposes differ, and collapsing them into one document has made both harder to use.

[4] In the revised briefing, every occurrence of this or it should be checked for a recoverable referent. The phrases online access and the catalogue must identify which service they mean. The writer may use short references once the distinctions are established, but cannot rely on readers to reconstruct a terminology that the project itself never agreed.

S3 · Reader response and editorial diagnosis

External reviewer

Invented for this course. Not a real organisation, study, quotation or public announcement. Cite the source ID within this exercise only.

[1] The submission contains relevant facts but asks the reader to perform much of the organising work. Its opening points towards equipment, its middle towards a permissions problem, and its ending towards responsibility for decisions. These threads could support a coherent argument, but the relationship between them is not yet explicit enough. Adding however at the start of three paragraphs would not establish the missing hierarchy.

[2] Begin the revision by writing a one-sentence function beside each paragraph. If two paragraphs introduce the same problem, decide whether one should develop evidence instead. If a paragraph mixes chronology with evaluation, identify which function the new audience requires. Move a sentence only after checking what its pronouns will refer to in the new position. Structural revision can create local ambiguity even while improving the overall argument.

[3] An effective conclusion would not merely repeat that access is complicated. It would name the decision still required, connect it to the evidence already presented and state what the proposed request log can and cannot resolve. The log can make responsibility visible. It cannot itself supply missing permission. That final distinction should reconnect the recommendation to the argument rather than introduce another topic at the last moment.

Reading questions

Which four meanings of access does S2 distinguish?
Was storing files internally in March public online access?
Why does S3 reject adding linking words as the main repair?
What can the request log not do?

Language in use

Grammar and reformulation

Title

Reference chains, given-to-new information, lexical cohesion, thematic progression and meaningful paragraph hierarchy.

Examples

The access problem is our point of departure, not the purchase date.
Retrospectively, the catalogue delay appears central rather than incidental.
This distinction between ownership and permission governs the recommendation.
The public catalogue, by contrast, contains descriptions rather than unrestricted files.

Local and daily-life application

Term
a point of departure
Thai
จุดเริ่มต้นของการพิจารณา
Pronunciation
ɐ pˈɔɪnt ʌv dɪpˈɑːɹtʃɚ
Example
The access problem is our point of departure, not the purchase date.
Term
retrospectively
Thai
เมื่อมองย้อนกลับไป
Pronunciation
ɹˌɛtɹoʊspˈɛktɪvli
Example
Retrospectively, the catalogue delay appears central rather than incidental.
Term
this distinction
Thai
ความแตกต่างที่กล่าวไว้
Pronunciation
ðɪs dɪstˈɪŋkʃən
Example
This distinction between ownership and permission governs the recommendation.
Term
by contrast
Thai
ในทางตรงกันข้าม
Pronunciation
baɪ kˈɑːntɹæst
Example
The public catalogue, by contrast, contains descriptions rather than unrestricted files.

Place
Source workshop
The access problem is our point of departure, not the purchase date.
Pronunciation
ðɪ ˈæksɛs pɹˈɑːbləm ɪz ˌaʊɚ pˈɔɪnt ʌv dɪpˈɑːɹtʃɚ, nˌɑːt ðə pˈɜːtʃɪs dˈeɪt.
Tip
The idea from which an extended account develops.
Place
Source workshop
Retrospectively, the catalogue delay appears central rather than incidental.
Pronunciation
ɹˌɛtɹoʊspˈɛktɪvli, ðə kˈæɾɐlˌɑːɡ dɪlˈeɪ ɐpˈɪɹz sˈɛntɹəl ɹˈæðɚ ðɐn ˌɪnsɪdˈɛntəl.
Tip
From a later position that changes how earlier events are understood.
Place
Source workshop
This distinction between ownership and permission governs the recommendation.
Pronunciation
ðɪs dɪstˈɪŋkʃən bɪtwˌiːn ˈoʊnɚʃˌɪp ænd pɚmˈɪʃən ɡˈʌvɚnz ðə ɹˌɛkəmɛndˈeɪʃən.
Tip
A reference to a specific contrast that must remain identifiable.

Independent practice

Trace each material claim to a source ID and paragraph.
Complete the required performance task; keep the first attempt.
Review using the analytic criteria, revise and explain one important change.

Interaction model

Participant A

The purchase was successful because the images were excellent.

Participant B

That addresses preservation quality. May I connect it to the earlier question about external access?

Participant A

Are you suggesting that the scanner was unnecessary?

Participant B

No. I am distinguishing what it achieved from the problem the next decision must solve.

Participant A

Then the permissions issue belongs in the conclusion?

Participant B

It needs to be established earlier, so the conclusion can explain who decides and what remains unresolved.

Synthesis studio

Organise by issues, not by source order. Distinguish genuine contradictions from differences in scope, population, purpose or definition. Produce a 1,200-word analysis and an eight-minute talk. Submit a lecture-and-text cohesion map, a reverse outline, a globally revised briefing with a source trace, and a seminar recording that reconnects earlier contributions without repetition. For the authentic-model comparison, select two permitted real examples and record their provenance separately from this fictional practice pack.

Output

Produce a 1,200-word analysis and an eight-minute talk. Submit a lecture-and-text cohesion map, a reverse outline, a globally revised briefing with a source trace, and a seminar recording that reconnects earlier contributions without repetition. For the authentic-model comparison, select two permitted real examples and record their provenance separately from this fictional practice pack.

Citation policy

Use [S1-P1] style local references. These invented sources must never be represented as external research. Clearly identify any permitted external source and its permission separately.

Your notes

Write, review, revise

Target words min

1200

Target words max

1200

Checklist

State the decision, audience and claim boundaries.
Trace factual claims and distinguish source evidence from interpretation.
Address the strongest relevant alternative fairly.
Revise a material weakness and explain the change.

Drafts

argument plan
first draft
peer feedback
revised final version

Revision focus

argument and inference
global structure
evidence and attribution
style and reader usability

Feedback cycle

Self-check → peer feedback → revise and explain your changes.

Your notes

Unrehearsed interaction

Read your role card separately. Make a bounded proposal, respond to an unexpected challenge, check one interpretation and seek a precise next step. Keep the disagreement visible when it remains unresolved.

Scenario

An archive project tells its history in the wrong order

Roles

Role
Evidence presenter
Brief
Explain the most defensible proposal from the dossier. State one limit you will not conceal.
Constraint
Do not invent an observation to close a gap.
Role
Critical reviewer
Brief
Choose a material definition, alternative explanation or source limitation and challenge the proposal.
Constraint
Acknowledge one valid part of the opposing case before challenging an inference.
Role
Recipient and mediator
Brief
Ask what the proposed action means for someone who has not read the sources. Test whether all participants attach the same meaning to a key term.
Constraint
Do not decide what someone intended without checking.
Role
Observer
Brief
Record exact moments of clarification, qualification, repair and recipient understanding.
Constraint
Assess the observed move, not confidence, accent identity or personality.

Goals

I can connect my contribution to earlier points, reopen a thread, and synthesise several turns without repetition.
I can reorganise dispersed material into a coherent structure suited to a new recipient and purpose.

Negotiation moves

Acknowledge a supported point.
Name the particular inference you question.
Request a targeted clarification.
Offer a conditional next step.
Read back a shared understanding without forcing agreement.

Duration seconds

600

Your notes

Audience and pragmatic effect

Reformulate one important claim for a specialist colleague, a new participant and a decision-maker. Test the received effect and preserve the factual boundary.

Contexts

specialist peer review
new participant orientation
decision briefing

Target functions

qualify a claim
request clarification
disagree diplomatically
repair an unintended implication

formal and explicit
neutral and action-oriented
collegial but bounded

Repair

Ask what the recipient understood, acknowledge the effect, clarify the intended proposition, and test the revised wording.

Your notes

Make the evidence usable

Brief a recipient who has not read the dossier. Preserve critical qualifications, explain one difficult concept, invite a check-back and revise the explanation if the recipient misunderstands. Reconstructed briefing plus trace map to source units.

Source en

An archive project tells its history in the wrong order — Use the identified sources, not memory or invented facts.

Mode

text-concepts-and-communication

Audience

A peer decision group unfamiliar with this dossier; later repeat for a specialist reader.

Source ids

esl6-w02-S1
esl6-w02-S2
esl6-w02-S3

Constraints

Do not invent missing results or permissions.
Retain material uncertainty and disagreement.
Ask recipients to state a decision and what remains uncertain.
Do not speak for a cultural group or infer private motives.

Your notes

Timed speaking and defence

Prompt

Preparation seconds

120

Speaking seconds

480

Follow up

Which source most strongly supports your central claim, and why?
Which limitation would materially change your proposed action?
A recipient has misunderstood one condition. Reformulate it without adding a new promise.

Your notes

Spoken task prompts

Produce a 1,200-word analysis and an eight-minute talk. Submit a lecture-and-text cohesion map, a reverse outline, a globally revised briefing with a source trace, and a seminar recording that reconnects earlier contributions without repetition. For the authentic-model comparison, select two permitted real examples with the teacher and record their provenance separately from this fictional practice pack.

I can connect my contribution to earlier points, reopen a thread, and synthesise several turns without repetition.

I can reorganise dispersed material into a coherent structure suited to a new recipient and purpose.

Speaking secondsReady

◆ Complex cohesion across long discourse

Learning goals

Core vocabulary

a point of departure

retrospectively

this distinction

by contrast

a subsidiary issue

the latter constraint

to return to

in that respect

an organising principle

a reverse outline

Meaning through delivery

Extended listening · An archive project tells its history in the wrong order

Transcript

Reading and source dossier

S1 · Project account submitted for review

S2 · Meeting note after the first external request

S3 · Reader response and editorial diagnosis

Reading questions

Language in use

Interaction model

Synthesis studio

Write, review, revise

Unrehearsed interaction

Audience and pragmatic effect

Make the evidence usable

Timed speaking and defence

Spoken task prompts

Support and access

My portfolio

Check your interpretation