Name the link
between ideas.
By Adam Frick · Illustrated draftWhy is the shorter draft still difficult?
You shorten a draft and the argument remains hard to follow. Did you expect fewer words to solve the problem? If so, the next sentence should name that disappointed expectation. I prefer a link such as “in spite of the reduced length” because the phrase makes the reasoning available for inspection. The reader can then question the expectation as well as the conclusion.
See the supporting references.Make the missing reasoning visible.
Name the disappointed expectation.
Constructed teaching exampleThe draft is shorter. However, the argument remains hard to follow.
The draft is shorter. In spite of the reduced length, the argument remains hard to follow.
Check the causal claim.
Constructed teaching exampleThe criteria changed. Therefore, fewer applicants qualified.
The criteria became stricter. As a result of the stricter criteria, fewer applicants qualified.
Match the phrase to the job.
Constructed teaching exampleComparison → In contrast to the earlier result
Scope → Within the limits of this sample
A longer link is no guarantee of better reasoning.
I recommend naming a relationship when the name adds information the reader needs. If the cause is already unmistakable, repeating a long causal phrase can become tedious. Manchester includes single-word connectors, and the research below does not prove that a longer English phrase always improves comprehension. In the criteria example, no connector can justify inventing stricter criteria or claiming a cause without evidence.
References and evidence
- University of Manchester’s Academic Phrasebank ↩
- Phrasebank’s comparison guidance ↩
- Phrasebank’s causality guidance ↩
- study by Kleijn, Pander Maat and Sanders ↩
- Phrasebank’s transition guidance ↩
Read the evidence and its limits.
The University of Manchester’s Academic Phrasebank[1] organises language around communicative functions such as comparison, causality and transition. That organisation helps a writer begin with the intended relationship before choosing the wording. I adapt the patterns to name the actual information in the paragraph. The Phrasebank is a resource for constructing a link, rather than a supply of phrases to insert without checking the meaning.
A concession is more specific than a simple comparison. Use “in spite of” when the second claim holds despite an obstacle or an expectation established by the first claim. Use a phrase such as “In contrast to the earlier result” when the intended relationship is a comparison between results. The Phrasebank’s comparison guidance[2] provides useful patterns, but the writer must decide which relationship the evidence actually supports.
The Phrasebank’s causality guidance[3] offers patterns for both established causes and possible associations. A phrase such as “Because of the delay” asserts a cause, whereas “In connection with the delay” identifies a relationship without specifying the same causal strength. Choose the strength that the evidence permits. Additional words help only when those words supply accurate information.
The study by Kleijn, Pander Maat and Sanders[4] examined connectives in authentic Dutch texts read by 794 adolescents. The effects varied with the relationship and the difficulty of the text, so inserting a connective did not produce one uniform benefit. The study supports attending to the kind of connection being expressed. The experiment did not compare a single English linking word with a longer English phrase, so my preference for named links remains a teaching recommendation.
A paragraph develops through a sequence of related decisions. The opening establishes the point, the middle supplies the explanation and the ending identifies a consequence or prepares the next point. In relation to that sequence, a descriptive link helps the reader recognise why the argument is moving. The Phrasebank’s transition guidance[5] offers a starting point for naming that movement.