Name the link
between ideas.
Identify the relationship between sentences. Name the cause, comparison or obstacle. Use the connection to develop the argument.
By Adam Frick · First draft
This essay develops my manifesto for Effective English. A shared language calls for dependable structures that make the writer’s meaning available to the intended audience. The discussion below explains how that purpose shapes the particular recommendation through examples and relevant sources.
1. A link should name the relationship.
Cohesion depends on the reader recognising how the next idea relates to the preceding idea. A joining word can point towards a relationship while leaving the content of that relationship unstated. I prefer linking language that names the obstacle, cause, comparison or limitation the next sentence needs. As a result of that explicit naming, the reader can follow both the direction of the argument and the information being carried forward.
The University of Manchester’s Academic Phrasebank 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.
2. Name the obstacle after the concession.
The revised draft is shorter. However, the argument remains difficult to follow.
The revised draft is shorter. In spite of the reduced length, the argument remains difficult to follow.
The revised link names reduced length as the change that has failed to produce the expected improvement. The phrase gives the second sentence a connection with a specific feature of the first sentence. A bare however identifies a general contrast but leaves the writer free to avoid naming the source of that contrast. I want the writer to complete the thought by stating the obstacle or expectation explicitly.
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 provides useful patterns, but the writer must decide which relationship the evidence actually supports.
3. Give a consequence an identifiable cause.
The team changed the eligibility criteria. Therefore, fewer participants qualified.
The team changed the eligibility criteria. As a result of the stricter criteria, fewer participants qualified.
The longer link makes the proposed cause explicit. A writer who cannot justify the description “stricter” must choose different wording, because the link now makes an evidential commitment. The original single-word link can conceal that unresolved decision. Explicit wording improves the opportunity to check the claim before publication.
The Phrasebank’s causality guidance 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.
4. Research supports purposeful links rather than decoration.
The study by Kleijn, Pander Maat and Sanders 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.
The Manchester resource also includes single-word connectors. I select and adapt the resource in accordance with my own preference for explicit references, rather than attributing that preference to Manchester. A link should tell the reader what the next sentence does with the preceding information. The number of words matters less than the accuracy and descriptive value of the connection.
5. Make a paragraph’s movement visible.
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 offers a starting point for naming that movement.
| Relationship | A descriptive link |
|---|---|
| Concession | In spite of the reduced length |
| Cause | As a result of the stricter criteria |
| Comparison | In contrast to the earlier result |
| Extension | Building on the finding about cost |
| Scope | Within the limits of this sample |
Each phrase requires the writer to identify information rather than merely signal that another sentence has arrived. A repeated key noun gives the reader continuity while the phrase names the change in direction. Vary the wording when the relationship changes instead of replacing a precise term simply to avoid repetition. The result should be a developing argument with a recognisable thread.
Write the relationship before choosing the link.
Describe in ordinary words how the next sentence uses the preceding sentence. Name the cause, comparison or obstacle that your explanation requires. Choose a phrase that states that relationship accurately and check the evidence behind the claim. Read the paragraph aloud to hear whether the movement is natural. If the link adds no information about the relationship, revise the reasoning before searching for a more impressive connector.