A multimodal discourse analysis of the textual and logical relations in marketing texts written by international undergraduate students

Table 3 The frequency and percentage of thematic progression patterns in the three students’ texts and the tutor’s two sample texts

Thematic progression type	Semiotic resource	Students								Tutor						Sub-total
		Nura		Hind		Zohoy		Total		Text 1		Text 2		Total
		Freq	%	Freq	%	Freq	%	Freq	%	Freq	%	Freq	%	Freq	%	Freq	%
Reiteration (or parallel)	Text	65	30.80 %	32	16.08 %	49	14.90 %	146	19.76 %	47	52.22 %	25	38.46 %	72	46.45 %	218	24.39 %
	Visual	75	35.55 %	118	59.30 %	220	66.87 %	413	55.80 %	5	5.56 %	8	12.31 %	13	8.39 %	426	47.65 %
	Text-Visual	140	66.35 %	150	75.38 %	269	81.77 %	559	75.64 %	52	57.78 %	33	50.77 %	85	54.84 %	644	72.04 %
Linear (or zig-zag)	Text	64	30.33 %	47	23.62 %	58	17.63 %	169	22.87 %	35	38.88 %	23	35.38 %	58	37.42 %	227	25.39 %
	Visual	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %
	Text-Visual	64	30.33 %	47	23.62 %	58	17.63 %	169	22.87 %	35	38.88 %	23	35.38 %	58	37.42 %	227	25.39 %
Multiple-Theme	Text	7	3.32 %	2	1.00 %	2	0.60 %	11	1.49 %	3	3.34 %	9	13.85 %	12	7.74 %	23	2.57 %
	Visual	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0 %
	Text-Visual	7	3.32 %	2	1.00 %	2	0.60 %	11	1.49 %	3	3.34 %	9	13.85 %	12	7.74 %	23	2.57 %
	Sub-total	211	100 %	199	100 %	329	100 %	739	100 %	90	100 %	65	100 %	155	100 %	894	100 %