Subscriber Content
Add content here that will only be visible to your subscribers.
This blog has been sitting in my drafts since February - time for these ideas to see the light of day. Curious to know if it was worth publishing this - please chime in below.
We often teach connectives like little glue words—“because,” “however,” “for example”—as if they’re interchangeable tools that just help ideas stick together. But if we want our students, especially multilingual learners, to become powerful writers of argument, then we need to go deeper. We need to show them that argument writing communicates a unique set of relationships between ideas—and that means it requires a special set of connectives to signal cause and effect, contrast, evidence, concession, etc.
In Systemic Functional Linguistics, these connectives are part of the textual metafunction—they help the writer guide the reader through the flow of meaning. But these language choices don’t float in isolation. They work because they serve a specific purpose in a specific genre. In argument writing, that purpose is to persuade through logic and evidence, and that logic needs to be visible in the language.
Students might use words like “because” or “however,” but unless they understand what kind of thinking each word is meant to show, their writing can feel more like filling in blanks than building an argument.
And that’s not just a writing issue—it’s a learning one. According to research from the Science of Learning, “The transfer of knowledge or skills to a novel problem requires both knowledge of the problem’s context and a deep understanding of the problem’s underlying structure.” In other words, if students don’t understand how language structures thinking, they can’t flexibly apply it in new writing tasks or disciplines.
That’s where explicit teaching comes in. Especially in high school, and particularly for "struggling" writers or students termed as Long Term ELs (LTELs), where demands ramp up and expectations for coherence and reasoning deepen, students need support to recognize the logical relationships that connect claims, evidence, and reasoning—and then choose connectives purposefully to express them.
This blog offers strategies, tools, and activities to teach connectives in context, with intention and clarity. It’s a small shift that can make a big difference in helping students become not just better writers, but more powerful thinkers.
Let’s get into it. First, here is the table of the various connectives students need to communicate different relationships. Below it is a set of interactive and engaging activities for students to have fun before they start writing.
Logico-semantic Relation
Function in Persuasion
Examples of Connectives
Addition (Elaboration)
Add supporting points or reinforce claims
furthermore, in addition, also, moreover
Comparison
Strengthen argument by showing similarity
similarly, likewise, just as
Contrast
Anticipate or introduce counterarguments
however, on the other hand, whereas, nevertheless
Causal (Cause–Effect)
Provide reasons and justify claims
because, since, therefore, thus, as a result
Condition
Introduce hypothetical or dependent reasoning
if, unless, provided that, in case
Concession
Acknowledge opposing points before rebutting
although, even though, while it is true that
Purpose
Explain intentions or desired outcomes
so that, in order to, for this reason
Temporal (Sequential)
Organize argument stages logically
first, next, then, finally, ultimately
Clarification / Restatement
Reinforce or reword key ideas
in other words, that is, to put it another way
Emphasis
Highlight or underscore main points
indeed, in fact, most importantly
Result / Consequence
Indicate outcomes or implications
hence, therefore, consequently, accordingly
Exemplification
Support general claims with examples
for example, for instance, such as
Add content here that will only be visible to your subscribers.
Goal: Distinguish types of connectives based on their function (e.g., cause, contrast, addition)
Why this works (SFL link): Helps students understand textual metafunction by explicitly connecting lexicogrammatical choices (connectives) to discourse meaning.
Goal: Revise underdeveloped arguments using precise and varied connectives.
Extension: Have students identify the logical relation they intended (e.g., contrast, result, purpose).
Goal: Identify and analyze connective use in published arguments or student exemplars.
Why this works (SFL link): Helps students see how writers manage logical flow and cohesion to persuade audiences.
Goal: Practice flexible use of connectives in speaking and writing.
Create a 6-sided die (physical or digital) where each side represents a type of connective:
Dr. Ruslana Westerlund is a researcher, consultant, and author of three publications on visible language pedagogy. With three decades of experience — including contributing to the WIDA 2020 Standards — she partners with global school districts to translate complex linguistic theory into equitable classroom practice. Ruslana believes that empowered teachers are the key to empowered students.