The perceptions and discourse markers in essay writing of english majors at faculty of english linguistics and literature university of social sciences and humanities national unive

Such a good arrangement in pieces of writing, which is considered as the coherence of a piece of writing, comes from a class of linguistic items which Schiffrin 1987 suggested that “do n

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HCM CITY

UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURE

THE PERCEPTIONS AND USE OF DISCOURSE MARKERS IN ESSAY WRITING OF ENGLISH MAJORS AT FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURE – UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES – NATIONAL

UNIVERSITY HO CHI MINH CITY

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature

in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL

By

TRẦN PHƯƠNG VY

Supervised by

NGUYỄN THỊ KIỀU THU, Ph.D.

HO CHI MINH CITY, OCTOBER 2021

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Firstly, I would like to express my sincere thanks and special gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Dr Nguyen Thi Kieu Thu, who read my manuscript with great care, gave insightful comments, and provided valuable support in the preparation and completion of this thesis Without her guidance and persistent help this thesis could not have been possible

Additionally, I would like to send my special thanks to all teachers who gave me remarks and advice, which are invaluable for the thesis In particular, I would like to thank Mr Vo Duy Minh who generously dedicated his time shared with me his experience as a writing teacher and Dr Luu Trong Tuan for his comments, suggestion, and encouragement

My special thanks go to all the students who were very responsive to the questionnaires and the interviews Also, I would like to thank the faculty members at USSH-EF who provided me with the full assistance whenever I needed it

Last but not least, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my family and

my friends for their love, caring, understanding, and continuing support to complete this thesis

STATEMENT OF ORGIGINALITY

I hereby certify my authorship of the thesis submitted today entitled:

THE PERCEPTIONS AND USE OF DISCOURSE MARKERS IN ESSAY WRITING OF ENGLISH MAJORS AT FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURE – UNIVERSITY

OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES – NATIONAL

UNIVERSITY HO CHI MINH CITY

In terms of the statement of Requirements for Theses in Master’s Program issued by the Higher Degree Committee of the Faculty of English Linguistics

& Literature, University of Social Sciences & Humanities, National

University Ho Chi Minh City

Ho Chi Minh City, October 2021

TRAN PHUONG VY

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS

I, TRẦN PHƯƠNG VY, hereby state that I being the candidate for the degree of Master in TESOL accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention and use of Master’s theses deposited in the Library

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the Library should be accessible for purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the Library for the care, loan or reproduction of the theses

Ho Chi Minh City, October 2021

Signature:

TRAN PHUONG VY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements i

Statement of originality ii

Retention and Use of the Thesis iii

Table of Contents iv

List of Tables viii

List of Figures ix

List of Abbreviations x

Abstract xi

CHAPTER 1: Introduction 01

1.1 Background to the study 01

1.2 Statement of the problem 04

1.3 Aims and objectives of the study 05

1.4 Research questions 06

1.5 Significance of the study 06

1.6 Scope of the study 07

1.7 Definitions of key terms 08

1.8 Organization of thesis chapters 08

CHAPTER 2: Literature review 10

2.1 English Discourse markers 10

2.1.1 Defining English Discourse markers 11

2.1.2 Discourse markers and Cohesive devices 15

2.1.3 Discourse markers in writing skills 16

2.1.4 Major approaches to Discourse markers 18

2.1.4.1 Coherence-based account of Discourse markers 19

2.1.4.1.1 Discourse coherence approach 19

2.1.4.1.2 Grammar-pragmatic approach 20

2.1.4.2 Relevance-based account of Discourse markers 21

2.1.4.2.1 Relevance theory framework 22

2.1.4.2.2 Rhetorical structure theory 22

2.1.5 Functions of English Discourse markers 23

2.1.6 Characteristics of English Discourse markers 25

2.1.7 Classifications of Discourse Markers 26

2.1.7.1 Fraser (1991, 1999, 2005, 2009)’s classification 26

2.1.7.2 Discourse marker classifications in studies relating to writing skills 28

2.1.7.3 Adapted Discourse marker classification and list 31

2.1.7.3.1 Mechanism of adapting the discourse marker classification 31

2.1.7.3.2 The discourse marker classification used in the study 33

2.2 Previous studies relating to discourse markers in essay writing skills 35

2.3 Conceptual framework of the study 40

CHAPTER 3: Methodology 42

3.1 Research design 42

3.2 Research site and time 44

3.3 Participants 45

3.3.1 Participants for the questionnaire 45

3.3.2 Participants for the interview 46

3.4 Instruments 47

3.4.1 Questionnaire 47

3.4.2 Interview 50

3.4.3 Essays written by students 51

3.5 Data collection procedures 52

3.5.1 Data collected from the questionnaire 52

3.5.2 Data collected from the interviews 52

3.5.3 Data collected from the essay written by students 52

3.6 Data analysis procedures 53

3.7 Statistic tools 55

3.7.1 Reliability statistics 55

3.7.1.1 Cronbach’s alpha coefficient 55

3.7.1.2 Item-total correlation coefficient 55

3.7.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis 55

3.7.3 Descriptive statistics 56

3.7.4 Percentage and Column/Pie charts 56

3.8 Assumptions of the study 56

CHAPTER 4: Results and Discussions 58

4.1 Results 58

4.1.1 Analyzing data collected from the research questionnaire 59

4.1.1.1 Dimension reduction 59

4.1.1.2 Regression analysis 62

4.1.1.3 Reliability statistics 64

4.1.2 Analyzing data collected from the interviews and the essays 65

4.1.2.1 Interviews 66

4.1.2.2 The essay written by the students 69

4.2 Discussion 74

4.2.1 Students’ perceptions of discourse markers 74

4.2.1.1 Students’ perceptions of DMs on characteristics of DMs 75

4.2.1.2 Students’ perceptions of DMs on functions of DMs 77

4.2.1.3 Students’ perceptions of DMs on learning DMs attitudes 78

4.2.1.4 Students’ perceptions of DMs on pedagogical value of DMs 80

4.2.1.5 Students’ perceptions of DMs on practical value of DMs 82

4.2.2 Students’ use of discourse markers 83

4.2.2.1 Commonness and Differences of using discourse markers in essay writing 84 4.2.2.2 Inappropriateness of using discourse markers in essay writing 86

CHAPTER 5: Conclusion 88

5.1 Summary of findings 88

5.2 Pedagogical implications 94

5.3 Limitations 94

5.4 Recommendations for further studies 95

References 97

 Books & Articles 97

 Websites 105

Appendix 1- Research questionnaire (English and Vietnamese version) … 107

Appendix 2- Interview (questions and transcript) 115

Appendix 3- Lists of discourse markers suggested by scholars 128

Appendix 4- An example of DM used in essays 133

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Pragmatic functions of DMs adapted from Briton (1996) 24

Table 3.1: The students’ distributions 46

Table 3.2: The function of questionnaire items 50

Table 3.3: The function of questions in the Interview 51

Table 3.4: Essays written by students 52

Table 4.1: Results of KMO and Bartlett’s test 59

Table 4.2: Results of Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings 60

Table 4.3: Results of extracting factors by dimension reduction analysis 61

Table 4.4: Model summary table of the linear regression analysis 63

Table 4.5: ANOVA table of the linear regression analysis 63

Table 4.6: Regression model of the linear regression analysis 64

Table 4.7: Reliability statistics of the five factors 65

Table 4.8: Students’ use of DMs in 113 essays (averagely) 70

Table 4.9: Students’ use of DMs in 113 essays per the kinds of essays 73

Table 4.10: Descriptive statistic results for the factor Characteristics of DMs 75

Table 4.11: Descriptive statistic results for the factor Functions of DMs 77

Table 4.12: Descriptive statistic results for the factor Learning DMs attitudes 79

Table 4.13: Descriptive statistic results for the factor Pedagogical value of DMs 81

Table 4.14: Descriptive statistic results for the factor Practical value of DMs 82

Table 4.15: Students’ use of DMs types per the kinds of essays 86

Table 5.1: DMs used averagely in essays with different kinds of essays 91

Table 5.2: Student’s use of DM types 92

Table 5.3: Student’s use of DM types per the kinds of essays 92

Table 5.4: Student’s use of DM types 93

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework of the study 41

Figure 3.1: Research design of the study 44

Figure 4.1: The proportion of DM types suggested by the interviewees 68

Figure 4.2: The most frequent DMs suggested by 16 interviewees 69

Figure 4.3: The proportion of DM types used by the students in their essays 71

Figure 4.4: The most frequent DMs used in 113 essays 72

Figure 4.5: The proportion of DM types used in different kinds of essays 74

Figure 4.6: The distribution of student’s perceptions of DMs on the characteristics of DMs 76

Figure 4.7: The distribution of student’s perceptions of DMs on the functions of DMs 78

Figure 4.8: The distribution of student’s perceptions of DMs by learning DMs attitudes 80

Figure 4.9: The distribution of student’s perceptions of DMs by learning DMs attitudes 81

Figure 4.10: The distribution of student’s perceptions of DMs on practical value of DMs 83

Figure 4.11: The proportion of inappropriate DMs used by the students in their essays 86

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

EF The Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature

USSH University of Social Sciences and Humanities – National University Ho Chi Minh City

ABSTRACT

This thesis aims to study the perceptions of discourse markers of the students at the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature – University of Social Sciences and Humanities – National University Ho Chi Minh City, and to investigate these students’ use of discourse markers in their essays Applying mixed research, the study, on the quantitative paradigm, uses a 26-item Likert responding scale questionnaire to survey the students’ perceptions of discourse markers with the statistical means of Exploratory Factor Analysis The regression model of the study with all Sig values of the factors are ≤ 0.05 states that the five factors of Functions

of DMs, Characteristics of DMs, Learning attitudes towards DMs, Pedagogical values of DMs, and Practical values of DMs are statistically significantly effective

to their ability to perceive discourse markers in the text Producing the R-value of

0.903, Sig value of ≤ 0.05 for ANOVA, the Exploratory Factor Analysis’ results are highly predictive and statistically significant On the other dimension, students’ use

of discourse markers is investigated by using the interview method and counting the discourse markers used in the students’ essays This dimension finds that the students share some significant commonness when using contrastive DMs, elaborative DMs, and inferential DMs most often as well as have remarkable differences in their use of discourse markers when the kinds of essays, Argumentative, Cause-Effect, Comparison or Contrast, and Process, are taken into consideration In addition, some inappropriate use of discourse markers are also found by this dimension of the study

Keywords: discourse markers, academic writing, students’ perceptions of DMs,

students’ use of DMs, coherence in academic writing.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This chapter refers to the general aspects of the thesis titled “The Perceptions and Use of Discourse Markers in Essay Writing of English Majors at the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature – University of Social Sciences and Humanities – National University Ho Chi Minh City” The chapter begins with the entry

“Background to the study”, in which the thesis mentions some issues, as the title mentions, concerning the students at USSH’s perceptions and use of discourse markers with some reasons and objectives referred to in the two next entries, 1.2 and 1.3 Entry 1.4 formulates three research questions that the study is expected to answer in chapter 5 of this thesis In entry 1.5, Significances of the study, the contributions of the study help to make the thesis valid Next, entry 1.6, Scope of the study, frames the focus of the study and states the reasons that the study does not approach other aspects which are almost relevant to the study The next entry, then,

is for defining the terms used with specific meanings in the study Last, entry 1.8 summaries the organization of the thesis

1.1 Background to the study

Among the four skills of using a language, especially a foreign language, writing is considered as the most important skill that university students have to face in order

to enhance both their personal development and their academic success (Mukulu et al., 2006) This skill is also the most challenging one for English as second language learners (Manan & Raslee, 2017) Approaching this skill, students have been challenged by many difficulties, and many researchers have been attempting to find these difficulties in order to introduce students and teachers effective suggestions to help students master the skill Many different difficulties have been found by researchers, consisting of grammar, punctuation and spelling (Younes & Albalawi, 2015), linguistics, cognitive and psychological problems (Rahmatunisa, 2014), the lack of time allocated to teach writing in classrooms (Almubark, 2016; Ariyanti &

Fitrinati, 2017), a wide range of vocabulary and mastery of conventions in mechanics to develop an English piece of writing (Jacobs, 1981; Hall, 1988) Generally, many facets of the difficulties that hinder students to compose pieces of writing as a native speaker have been considered and, to a certain extent, these difficulties are intrapersonal other than interpersonal Mentioning the effectiveness

of a piece of writing, Weigle (2002) wrote:

“… In evaluating a final written product, thus, it is no longer strictly the ability

of the writer to use his or her own linguistic and cognitive resources to generate appropriate texts independently that is the issue, but rather the ability

of the writer to make use of all available resources - including social interactions - to create a text that appropriately meets the needs of the audience and fulfills a communicative goal …”

(Weigle, 2002, p.178)

On this dimension, Djigunovic and Vickov (2011) affirmed that the obstruction undoubtedly includes appropriate use of link words, which opens the question of the degree of their acquisition by foreign language learners According to these scholars, due to a foreign language learner’s inappropriate use of link words and transition words – “discourse markers” in linguistic terminology – his/her language behavior is likely to be interpreted as deficient, boring, impolite, weird and the like (Djigunovic

& Vickov, 2011, pp 255 - 256) Without link words and transition words, a piece of writing will be easy to contain choppy sentences, which are defined as “too many short simple sentences that make a piece of writing appear unsophisticated and the ideas in the piece of writing seem disconnected” (Williams, 2008), making readers not only get difficult to follow the ideas developed in the piece of writing but feel boring when trying to understand the paper Sharing the ideas, Manan and Raslee (2017) come to the finding that “one of the issues confronting ESL learners is they fail to use discourse markers effectively in their essays” (Manan & Raslee, 2017, p 103) Using no discourse markers or using discourse markers inappropriately will surely result in poor structure and organization of ideas in students’ pieces of writing

because it leads the audience to be confused by what the author intends to express (Ayman & Khaled, 2013)

Discourse markers (DMs, hereafter), which reflect the social and cultural values of the language that are generally known to its native speakers, play a vital role in the overall organization of native speakers’ discourses because they contribute towards

a pragmatic meaning of an utterance, creating cohesion and coherence in written communication (Djigunovic & Vickov, 2011) Djigunovic and Vickov (2011) have also confirmed that insufficient knowledge of these linguistic items and their inaccurate use may cause misunderstanding and difficulty in coherent interpretation and may hinder interpersonal and intercultural interaction as well as the efficiency in communication Due to such a crucial significance of discourse markers, these linguistic items are regarded as an indispensable component of discourse, pragmatic and, in more general terms, communication competence (ibid.) This situation is more serious with academic writing, in which coherent structure is crucial to organize writers’ ideas and which should be clear, concise and focused (Leonhard,

2002; Oshima & Hogue, 2004; Smalley & Ruetten, 1995) Ghanbari et al (2016)

pointed out that writers of academic genres perform better than those of academic genres because of the nature and kind of the genres that expect from the writers These scholars explained that academic genre can be considered as a good kind to involve readers deeper in the way that the writers compose pieces of writing

non-and hence leading to different amounts of used discourse markers (Ghanbari et al.,

2016, p 1456)

Unfortunately, despite the highly important role of discourse markers in achieving discourse coherence, these linguistic items are noted to have been rather neglected in foreign language learning (Trillo, 2002; Muller, 2005; Djigunovic & Vickov, 2011)

In the process of learning a foreign language, students have traditionally experienced the grammatical aspect of the language as well as the syntactic, morphological, semantic aspects to be able to produce propositional content of pieces of writing but

these students seemed not to be explicitly taught to use discourse markers appropriately and effectively Consequently, they tend to use discourse markers less frequently than native speakers (Weinert, 1998), and often use them in inappropriate ways, which native speakers have never used (Yang, 2005)

1.2 Statement of the problem

Coherence is always considered as the main aspect to keep the flow of ideas developed in a passage smooth and to help readers follow the content conveyed in the passage easily (Asadzadian, 2017) Such a good arrangement in pieces of writing, which is considered as the coherence of a piece of writing, comes from a class of linguistic items which Schiffrin (1987) suggested that “do not easily fit into

a linguistic class,” and named such sort of linguistic items as discourse markers

(Schiffrin, 1987, p 328) Karaata et al (2012) affirmed that discourse markers created discourse coherence which is considered as the essence and substance in

academic writing (Karaata et al., 2012) while these linguistic items focus on

coherence in the writing operation (Al-Khazraji, 2019) However, researchers have also found that in English classes, students have tended to be more interested in words and sentence level, instead of textual coherence (Al-Khazraji, 2019)

Despite the important role of DMs in essay writing, many studies have shown that applying DMs when developing pieces of writing, especially, academic writing, is not an easy matter for second language students of English (Cho, 1998; Bolton, Nelson & Hung, 2002; Narita, Sato & Sugiura, 2004, cited in Patriana et al., 2016) Phan (2011) remarked that “coherence in Vietnamese writings is not very necessary” (Phan, 2011, p 33) and that, between the two concepts of coherence and cohesion, Vietnamese students have concentrated much more on cohesion to make the writings grammatical (ibid.) While it has been claimed that university students’ writing ability will be enhanced significantly when discourse markers are explicitly instructed in writing courses (Karaata, Cepik & Cetin, 2012), it, according to

Albesher et al (2017), was an alarming observation that the learners of English were

unaware of the important features of discourse markers in developing writing competence in the learners (Albesher et al., 2017) More importantly, up till now, upon the thesis author’s remark, the linguistic items of discourse markers have been largely ignored to be carefully studied in Vietnam environment, especially in the community of USSH students, most of whom will be teachers of English in the future, making the concerned English teachers and educators lack adequate knowledge about students’ perceptions and use of discourse markers Although the researcher has tried her best, she has found no study focusing on discourse markers

in the environment of teaching English, especially with writing skills, at USSH; also, upon the researcher’s observations, the periods that lecturers utilize to help university students use discourse markers skillfully and appropriately are not prioritized Not only are discourse markers underrated in our environment these linguistic items are also underestimated in other countries as studied by different

researchers (Kalajahi & Abdullah, 2012; Asadzadian, 2017; Alipour & Jalilifar, 2007; Albesher et al., 2017; Daif-Allah & Albesher, 2013)

This thesis is an attempt to extend the current limited knowledge about university students’ perceptions and use of English discourse markers with writing skills, especially academic writing, in the context of USSH

1.3 Aims and objectives of the study

This study, naturally, aims itself to examine EF English majors’ perceptions and use

of DMs in essay writing The study, therefore, focuses on the following objectives:

 To explore the students’ perceptions of DMs in essay writing by studying these students’ ability to perceive DMs in an experiment, their understanding of the practical and pedagogical values of DMs used, their knowledge about the characteristics and the roles of DMs in texts, and their learning attitudes towards this sort of linguistic items;

 To examine the students’ use of DMs in their essays by examining the frequency of DMs in texts, in general, and the categories of DMs, in particular; with this objective, the study also would like …

 To investigate the students’ commonness and differences in the way of using DMs in essay writing; and

 To study the common problems in the way of using DMs in essay writing of the students in the study

1.4 Research questions

In other to accomplish the aforementioned objectives, two following research questions are formulated:

1 How do English majors perceive discourse markers in essay writing?

2 How do English majors use discourse markers in essay writing?

1.5 Significance of the study

It is undeniable that one key importance of achieving and fulfilling such demands of writing is through the successful application of discourse markers to ensure the coherence and cohesion in the text to effectively communicate to the audience (Manan & Raslee, 2011) The findings that the study comes up, then, may enhance the awareness of Vietnamese university students in the way to use discourse markers

in their English pieces of writing in order to convey their ideas to the audience coherently and cohesively

Also, this study is expected to give meaningful insight into students’ knowledge of the application of discourse markers when these students try to compose their essays Upon the thesis author’s observation, discourse markers are not much focused on the subject of Academic writing when these linguistic items are considered as belonging to “grammar” other than the skills of composing essays Although academic writing can be greatly improved through the use of DMs (Swan, 2005; Wei, 2013; Asadzadian, 2017; Manan & Raslee, 2017) as it can lead to

efficient understanding of concepts and structure in written discourse, this neglect, consequently, may reduce the effectiveness of students’ pieces of writing

1.6 Scope of the study

Although discourse markers relate to both spoken and written language, this study,

as its title states, confines itself to the perceptions and the use of discourse markers

in written language when the students involved in the study learn the subject of Academic writing in USSH’s full-time program and compose the essays under their lecturer’s requirement Furthermore, the study also restricts itself to writing around 500-word essays although many genres of academic writing exist

The study also delimitates itself to the relation between students’ perceptions and their use of discourse markers upon the students’ responses to the questionnaire and the discourse markers that these students use in their pieces of writing With such a delimitation, this study does not take the students’ course results into the consideration with the reason that the course results, or the score that the students’ essays are marked, are affected by many aspects of which some are different from discourse markers

This study also sets the delimitation that the way that the lecturer instructs students about discourse markers is not included in the study although, undoubtedly, such instructions might intensively affect the students’ perceptions and the use of discourse markers intensively (Manan & Raslee, 2017, 2018; Asadzadian, 2017) This delimitation is set forward because such a way is different from a lecturer to another, and, also, the use of discourse markers, as many researchers have pointed out (Trillo, 2005; Muller, 2005; Djigunovic & Vickov, 2011), very often is neglected when students come to the subject of writing Furthermore, most of these linguistic items are considered as parts of grammar and students have been instructed in the previous semesters

1.7 Definitions of key terms

In this study, the following terms are used with their specific meaning:

Perceptions: According to Qiong (2017), perception is the process of attaining

awareness or understanding of sensory information Thus, students’ perceptions in this study refer to the view towards DMs in terms of their meaning and usage in writing English essays

Use: This term is used to refer to the way that the participants have used DMs in

their essays in academic writing of English majors at EF

Other specific terms, the types of DMs, the course of Academic Writing, writing skills, will be defined in the relevant entries in Chapter 3

1.8 Organization of thesis chapters

The thesis, entitled The Perceptions and Use of Discourse Markers in Essay Writing

of English Majors at the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature – University

of Social Sciences and Humanities – National University Ho Chi Minh City, is organized with the five chapters below

 Chapter 1: This chapter, named Introduction, consists of aspects fundamental

for a thesis, including the background that the researcher decides to study the field, the problem that the researcher has concerned to set up the aims and the objectives for the study in order to formulate the two research questions, the significance of the study as well as introducing some terms used with specific meaning in the study

 Chapter 2: In this chapter, the theoretical literature of the study which are the main approaches that the scholars have had with discourse markers as well as the ways that these scholars have classified discourse markers into different categories

is reviewed Also, some previous studies have been referred to give a solid background about the field This chapter is finished with the conceptual framework for further analysis in the next chapters

 Chapter 3: This chapter mentions first the design that the study is set up to address the three research questions introduced in chapter one The chapter also

refers to the sample of the respondents involved in the study and all means of statistical instruments used in the study in order to reach valid and reliable results for the study

 Chapter 4: This chapter has two important parts The first part relates to analyzing the data collected from the questionnaire and the essays written by the students involved in the study The second part relates to discussing the results of the statistic runs to have some findings before answering the two research questions

 Chapter 5: As the name of the chapter suggests, this chapter is for concluding the thesis before introducing some suggestions for students and lecturers in the fields

of learning and teaching discourse markers The chapter, also, recommends some ideas for further researches to cover the limitations that this thesis gets as well as to enlarge the scope of the study

Naturally, the thesis also includes the authors and the sources that the researcher refers to reference pages and some appendices for readers to follow the thesis easily

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter is to review the literature relating to DMs and the students’ perceptions and use of DMs when these students compose their essays The chapter starts with the aspects relating to English DMs by defining English DMs with their attributes, stating the functions of DMs in conversations, reviewing three main approaches to the field, and reporting the classifications of DMs that different scholars have made Next, the chapter reviews the importance of using DMs in essay writing, which has been the motivation urging the thesis author to proceed with the study After that, the chapter goes through some previous studies in the perceptions and the use of DMs of students in many countries to have good knowledge about the field that the study is going to approach Last, the chapter reports the conceptual framework that the study bases on to proceed the investigation on “The Perceptions and Use of Discourse Markers in Essay Writing of English Majors at the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature – University of Social Sciences and Humanities – National University Ho Chi Minh City.”

2.1 English Discourse markers

The study of DMs has recently turned out to be a growth industry in linguistics with many articles appearing yearly However, the term denoting this sort of linguistic items has had different meanings for different groups of researchers (Fraser, 1999), and a long list of terminology relating to this sort of linguistic items have been

introduced, including sentence connectives (Halliday & Hasan, 1976), discourse

signaling devices (Polanyi & Scha, 1983), pragmatic connectives (Stubbs, 1983), semantic conjuncts (Quirk et al., 1985), discourse particles (Schourup, 1985;

Aijmer, 2002), pragmatic markers (Schiffrin, 1987), pragmatic expressions (Erman, 1987), pragmatic markers (Schiffrin, 1987; Fraser, 1988; Fraser, 1990), connectives (Blakemore, 1987; Blakemore; 1992), phatic connectives (Bazanella, 1990), phatic

connectives (Bazanella, 1990), discourse operators (Redeker, 1990; Redeker, 1991), pragmatic operators (Ariel, 1994), cue phrases (Knott & Dale, 1994), pragmatic

particles (Ostman, 1995), connectors (Biber et al., 1999), conjunctive adverbials

(Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999), connectives (Huddleton & Pullum, 2002),

discourse connectors (Cowan, 2008; Kalajani et al., 2012), discourse markers

(Fraser, 1990; Fraser, 1999), and so forth This diversity, consequently, has been followed a difference in the way to define DMs as well as to classify the types of DMs in the researcher community

2.1.1 Defining English Discourse markers

Although scholars have generally agreed that DMs are lexical expressions that relate

to discourse segments (Fraser, 1999), the issue has still been problematic and controversial when these linguistic items have been studied under different labels (Fraser, 1999; Schourup, 1999) Schourup (1999) insisted that there have existed disagreements on the fundamental issues in the studies of DMs when scholars have been unable to agree on the grammatical type of DMs or how to delimit their classes

or even what types of meaning these markers express (Schourup, 1999, in Houssein,

2007, p 75) These disagreements have led to different mechanisms to define DMs and classify types of DMs

In the most general perspective, discourse markers can be defined as “words and phrases used in speaking and writing to “signpost” discourse by joining ideas together, showing turns, showing the speaker/writer’s attitude1, and generally controlling communication” and “as linguistic items which are difficult to place within a traditional word class” (Jucker & Ziv, 1998) Using skillfully these linguistic items often indicates a higher level of fluency and an ability to produce and understand authentic language” (British Council, 2019) In other words, these linguistic items, of which each indicates a particular meaning relationship between two or more clauses, are used to combine clauses or to connect sentence elements (Bauer-Ramazani, 2013) by showing the connection between what a speaker/writer

is saying and what has already been said/written or what is going to be said/written

1 This attitudinal function is not agreed by some scholars (see Fraser in this entry) and this study (see 2.1.7.3.)

in discourses, which mean “pieces of language longer than a sentence” (Swan, 2005) However, the term, actually, has different meanings for different groups of researchers under a variety of labels (Fraser, 1999)

Depending on the standpoint approached the field, different scholars had different

definitions of these linguistic items Schiffrin (2001), under the term discourse

markers, defined these linguistic items as “non-obligatory utterance-initial items

functioning concerning ongoing talk and text” and proposed that DMs could be considered as a set of linguistic expressions comprised of varied members of word classes, involving conjunctions, adverbs, interjections, and lexicalized phrases (Schiffrin, 2001) Aijmer (2002), by using a “bottom-up” approach, labeled the term

as discourse particles and described these linguistic items as “a class of words with

unique formal, functional, and pragmatic properties” (Aijmer, 2002, p 1) Fraser

(1990, 1999), labeling these linguistic items as discourse markers, cogitated that

DMs are one kind of pragmatic markers, and provided a comprehensive definition of DMs, which are “lexical expressions which signal the relation of either contrast, implication, or elaboration between the interpretation of segment two (S2, hereafter) and segment one (S1, hereafter) (Fraser, 1999, p 302) Cowan (2008) differentiated

discourse markers from discourse connectors and defined discourse markers as

words used to perform certain functions in a conversation, for example, shifting to a different topic, expressing speakers’ attitude to the ongoing topic, pausing to consider what to say next, repairing an utterance” (Cowan, 2008, p 615) Tannen et

al (2015) concentrated much on the functions of these linguistic items to outline

discourse markers a group of linguistic elements functioning in social, expressive,

textual and cognitive domains, and reflecting the writer or the speaker’s selection of management, organization, and monitoring the information Bauer-Ramazani (2013), as a grammarian, pondered DMs as linguistic items, each of which indicates

a particular meaning relationship between two or more clauses, used to combine clauses or connect sentence elements This grammarian deliberated that this class of lexical expressions syntactically consist of four types, 1) coordinating conjunctions;

2) connectors; 3) subordinating conjunctions, and 4) phrase linkers to signal the meaning relationship of contrast, reason, addition, similarity, concession (unexpected results), and time

Regardless of being called discourse markers, discourse connectives, discourse

operators, cue phrases or anything else, the expressions under discussion still share

the two common properties: first, they are removable without affecting the grammatical aspects of the sentences, and two, they function like a two-placed relation when “impose a relationship between some aspect of the discourse segment they are a part of, called S2, and some aspect of a prior discourse segment, called S1.” (Fraser, 1999, p 938) Based on these two common properties, Fraser (1999) recommended four following issues to define a discourse marker

 First, “although a DM typically relates only the segment of which it is a part to the immediate segment, this is not always the case” when a DM relates to not only the segment it introduces but also to several following segments (ibid., p 938);

 Second, a DM may occur in the medial or final position of sentences, and need not strictly introduce S2 (ibid., p 938)

 Third, the interpretations of the discourse segments must be compatible with the particular DM used in order that a sequence is considered coherent (ibid., p 941)

 The fourth issue involves the grammatical status of the discourse segments (ibid.,

p 939) This issue, however, is problematic when some aspects do not reach the consensus among the scholars as well as within a scholar him/herself While coordinating conjunctions are on the consensus of researchers to be DMs, subordinating conjunctions launches a discrepancy with scholars Fraser (1999)

suggested the expressions as since, because, while, and unless are DMs when

expressions permit both canonical forms of either [S1(comma) DM + S2] and [DM + S2(comma) S1] Bauer-Ramazani (2013), on the side of Fraser (1999), claimed

that the subordinating conjunctions are DMs when these conjunctions occur in the structures, regardless of standing initially or at the end of the sentence This idea seemed not to reach other scholars’ agreement Swan (1995; 2005)

maintained that [as/since + clause] is used at the beginning of sentences, with a

comma, when the reason is already known to the listener/reader (Swan, 2005, p 73)

In the case that [since/because/while/unless/if/etc + clause] is at the final

position of the sentence and no comma is used to separate the two clauses in the sentence, the information in the clause relates to the previous part of the

sentence Then, removing [since/because/while/unless/if + clause] will change

the information that the speaker/writer wants to deliver Conversely, with the

canonical sequence [since/because/while/unless/if/etc + clause(comma) S1] the DM can be removed from the sentence without affecting the grammatical aspect of the sentence as well as the information that the writer wants to deliver Noteworthily, in Fraser’s earlier writings (Fraser, 1990; Fraser, 1991; Fraser,

1993), the scholar excluded the expressions as since, because, although from the

list of DMs when these expressions do not introduce a separate clause in the sentence

Additionally, Fraser (1999) also advocated some expressions functioning almost similar to a DM but they should not be considered as DMs First, expressions as

frankly, fortunately, stupidly can occur in the initial position, after the subject, or the

final position as a DM but they are not DMs when these expressions do not signal a two-placed relationship between the adjacent discourse segments (Fraser, 1999, p 942) However, these expressions are still considered as attitudinal DMs by other researchers (Ghanbari et al., 2016; Iseni, 2013; Albesher et al., 2017) Fraser (1999)

also recommended the expressions of as a result (of that), because of (this/that),

despite (this/that), for this/that reason, in addition to (this/that), in comparison to/with (this/that), despite (this/that), in this/that case, instead of (this/that), on this/that condition, which can occur in the canonical form [S1(full stop) DM + S2] to be

DMs, not being DMs when they function simply as a preposition with a nominalization form from S1 as its object and do not introduce a separate message (Fraser, 1999, p 940) In contrast, Matinez (2004), Ali and Mahadin (2016) considered these words as DMs and categorized them attitudinal DMs

2.1.2 Discourse markers and Cohesive devices

Although the two concepts of DMs and cohesive devices are connectedness of written discourses (Bublitz, 2011) and cohesive texts could be partly considered as coherent (Grabe, 1984), discourse markers, which are the linguistic items making texts, essays in this study, more coherent, are completely different from cohesive devices DMs relate to the coherent aspects in the text, referring to developing, synthesizing, organizing and clarifying the ideas in a text, while cohesive devices relate to the cohesion and focus on grammatical aspects of writing when helping to connect a sentence to other sentences (Min, 2019) To distinguish coherence and cohesion, McNamara et al (2010) clarified that the latter is “grounded in explicit linguistic elements and their combinations” while coherence lies in the interplay between text cohesion and readers, which builds the readers’ “mental model” of the text (McNamara et al., 2010, p 11)

As a "part of speech", DMs are used to link sentences or paragraphs in an essay These linguistic items help readers to progress from one idea to the ongoing ideas Moreover, not only do these linguistic items connect ideas, they can also introduce a certain shift, contrast or opposition, emphasis or agreement, purpose, result or conclusion, etc in the line of argument (Min, 2019) Thus, these linguistic items help to build up coherent relationships within the texts, making the texts be acquired

easily because, as Todirascu et al (2013) affirmed, the more coherent a sequence of sentences in a passage, the better the passage is understood (Todirascu et al., 2013)

In academic writing, these linguistic items are essential; they, however, are movable When these linguistic items are removed from the text, the main ideas given are unchanged and the text is still grammatical On the other hand, cohesive devices

connect writers’ ideas at the sentence level, focusing on the grammatical aspects of writing when helping to connect a clause to another clause, a sentence to another sentence or to make a sentence more academic and meaningful (Min, 2019) Different from DMs, cohesive devices are unremovable When a linguistic item of cohesive devices is removed from a text, the relevant sentence is naturally ungrammatical Cohesive devices, therefore, have two kinds of relations: grammatical relations, which are expressed by the aspect of reference (relative pronouns, pronouns, demonstrative adjectives, possessive adjectives), substitution

(the replacing words of one, do, so, etc.), ellipsis (a “form of substitution in which

the item is replaced by nothing”, Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p 88), and conjunctions

(and, but, so, or, etc.), and lexical relations such as synonymy, antonymy,

synecdoche, metonymy, hyponymy, etc (Alsaawi, 2016)

2.1.3 Discourse markers in writing skills

Writing is very important in English language learning particularly in an academic scenario in the universities as it is one of the important means for communication

(Albesher et al., 2017) To write well, the writer needs to possess sufficient

knowledge of vocabulary and grammar Moreover, to be able to compose a successful piece of academic writing, writers also need to ensure the written text to

be coherent and cohesive (Manan & Raslee, 2017) through the use of proper and suitably joined words and phrases, which are elaborated into sentences and paragraphs, which places a lot of demands on writers One key importance of achieving and fulfilling such demands in writing is through the successful application of DMs (Manan & Raslee, 2017)

Discourse markers have a prepense impingement on writing, supplying unity to the text and linking the ideas to contribute its parts to the quality of pieces of writing (Al-khazraji, 2019) The presence of DMs in written discourse is similar to things as gestures or non-verbal language in spoken discourse; showing the writer’s awareness in organizing the text by marking the development of their argument and

guiding the readers towards the writer’s preferred interpretations (Patriana et al.,

2016, cited from Biber et al., 1999; Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999) DMs play an essential part in cohesion, in which it can be used to successfully establish function and meaning (Schiffrin, 1987)

The two functions of DMs, which are the textual function and the interpersonal function, also reveal their significant role in writing (Asadzadian, 2017) Citing Brinton (1996), Asadzadian (2017) claimed that if these linguistic items are removed from a piece of writing, it would make the interaction awkward, unnatural, impolite, unfriendly or dictatorial even though the piece of writing is still grammatical and informative (Brinton, 1996, cited in Asadzadian, 2017) Fraser (1999) remarked that when a piece of writing is composed without DMs, communication breakdown might happen because these linguistic items play an important part in semantic cohesion (Halliday & Hasan, 1976) in which they help to construct the function and meaning of the passage (Schiffrin, 1987) Sharing with these ideas, Ayman and Kahled stated that using DMs inefficiently or not using DMs often results in poor structure and organization of ideas in students’ writing (Ayman & Khaled, 2013) Not a few scholars have found that writers of English as a second language (ESL, hereafter) who used DMs aptly and effectively produced a better quality of writing (Jalilifar, 2008; Martinez, 2002; Wei, 2013) Vickov (2015) even stated that “as to the relationship between DM use and writing quality, it is generally believed that the larger number of DMs used, the higher quality in writing will be achieved” (Vickov,

2015, p 208) Studying the effectiveness of using DMs in writing skills, Wei (2013) concluded that the use of DMs in ESL will lead to better communication with readers, to make the piece of writing be organized better, to help readers interpret the texts easier, and on the whole, to amazingly improve learners’ skills not only in speaking and writing but also listening and reading (Wei, 2013) In detail, the scholar claimed that through the use of DMs, readers may achieve a more efficient understanding of concepts, and the structure of technical writing can be greatly

improved (ibid.) Blakemore (1987) considered these linguistic items as “discourse connectives” and believed that these “discourse connectives” to be the most effective way to influence the use of language on written passages by putting linguistic limitations on cognitive contexts (Blakemore, 1987, cited in Asadzadian, 2017) In addition, Wei (2013) affirmed that appropriately used DMs in writing helps to provide arrangements particularly in introductions and conclusions to academic writing (Wei, 2013) Moreover, according to this scholar, the use of DMs

is not only beneficial in the teaching and learning of the English language but also in other disciplines (ibid.)

However, despite the important role of DMs in writing skills, especially academic writing, many studies have shown that applying DMs effectively and appropriately

is not an easy matter for second language students of English (Cho, 1988; Bolton et

al., 2002; Narita et al., 2004, in Patriana et al., 2016) Even though possessing a

good command of vocabulary and grammar, students of English still get difficulties writing a well-structured composition (Albesher et al., 2017) These limitations surely have come from the inadequate awareness of DMs in writing skills as well as the gap between students’ perceptions of DMs and their use of DMs when

composing essays (Albesher et al., 2017)

2.1.4 Major Approaches to Discourse Markers

Perspectives towards DMs among different scholars are varied mainly based on their starting viewpoints and their research methods Many scholars have afforded to study English DMs from different dimensions and many approaches to DMs have been considered as the background for series of articles and studies These trends are slightly different from each other in terms of emphasis in the definition because of the varying ways of describing and the understanding of DMs and analytical

methods used to categorize them (Kalajahi et al., 2012) Although these approaches

have some differences, they are all significant and influential in the field of

discourse study Generally, these approaches can be divided into two main accounts, coherence-based and relevance-based accounts (Housein, 2007)

2.1.4.1 A coherence-based account of Discourse markers

Schiffrin (1987) and Fraser (1987, 1990) were the two scholars typical for this account though each of them approached DMs from their different perspectives This account argues that DMs play a crucial role in the interpretation of discourse by signaling coherence relations between discourse units (Houssein, 2007) Giving a favor to this account, Zarei (2013) claimed that DMs contribute to coherence by establishing multiple contextual coordinates simultaneously, thus facilitating the

integration of various components of talk (Zarei, 2013)

2.1.4.1.1 Discourse coherence approach

This approach of DMs was first proposed by Schiffrin (1987) when the scholar, maintaining coherence is “constructed through relations between adjacent units in

discourse” (Schiffrin, 1987, p 24), labeled discourse markers to the linguistic items

which mark “sequentially-dependent units of discourse” and which “function to add discourse coherence” (Schiffrin, 1987, p 326) The scholar went further to suggest that paralinguistic features and non-verbal gestures are possible DMs (Schiffrin,

1987, in Fraser, 1999) Based on the functions of these linguistic items, Schiffrin (1987, 2001) set forth five tentative suggestions to constitute a discourse marker as a) be syntactically detachable from a sentence; b) be commonly used in the initial position of an utterance; c) have a range of prosodic contours; d) be able to operate

at both local and global levels of discourse; and e) be able to operate on different planes of discourse

According to Schiffrin (1987), the discourse model includes several different planes

of coherence and structure Schiffrin (1987) proposed a discourse model with five distinct and separate planes: Participation Framework, Information State, Ideational Structure, Action Structure, and Exchange Structure (Schiffrin, 1987, pp 24 - 25) and pointed out that some DMs relate possibly to the semantic reality of the two

segments while others may relate sentences on a logical (epistemic) level and/or a speech act (pragmatic) level (Schiffrin, 1987, in Fraser, 1999) Schifrin (1987) concluded with a more detailed definition of DMs First, the conditions in which a word could be used as a discourse marker were specified as “syntactically detachable, initial position, range of prosodic contours, operate on different planes

of discourse, at both local and global levels” (Schiffrin, 1987) Secondly, she suggested that DMs are comparable to “indexicals or in a broader sociolinguistic framework” (Schiffrin, 1987) Last, Schiffrin (1987) insisted that each marker has its primary function, but its use is multifunctional, which helps to integrate different simultaneous processes underlying the construction of the discourse, and thus helps

to create coherence

Four years later, Redeker (1991), calling these linguistic items discourse operators,

provided a critique of Schiffrin (1987) and proposed some revisions Redeker’s (1991) revision proposed the model of discourse coherence with only three planes: Ideational Structure, Rhetorical Structure (roughly equivalent to Schiffrin’s Action Structure), and Sequential Structure (roughly equivalent to Schiffrin’s Exchange Structure, plus with Information Structure and Participation Framework) (Redeker,

“pragmatic markers” (Fraser, 1990, in Zarei, 2013) Fraser (1987) believed that DMs

do not merely function as textual coherence but also signal the speakers’ intentions

to the next turn in the preceding utterance (Kalajahi et al., 2012) Based on this

belief, in his later works (Fraser, 1990, 1999), Fraser characterized these linguistic

items as the expressions which have a core meaning enriched by the context and which signal the relationship between the segment the DMs introduce and the foregoing segment (Zarei, 2013) With these characterizations, Fraser (1990, 1999) investigated DMs in relation to sentences Fraser’s (1999) framework focused on the meaning of sentences in term of how one type of pragmatic markers in each sentence might relate the message conveyed by itself to the message of a prior sentence (Fraser, 1999, in Schiffrin, 2001), depending on two separate parts of sentence meaning: content meaning and pragmatic meaning The first part which is content meaning represents the state that the speaker intends to convey to the hearer The second part is called pragmatic meaning which concerns the speaker’s communicative intention, the direct message the speaker intends to convey in uttering the sentence (Fraser, 1999)

Even though both Schiffrin (1987) and Fraser (1999) approached the DM field in the coherence-based account, there are at least two important differences between the two scholars (Hussein, 2007) First, while Schiffrin (1987) claimed that DMs links adjacent units of talk, Fraser (1999) argued that DMs can relate the segment they introduce to any other previous segment in the discourse, and need not link two adjacent units of talk In this aspect, while Schiffrin (1987) focused on “local coherence”, Fraser (1999) concentrated on “global coherence” (ibid.) The second difference between the two scholars concerns the structural, semantic and pragmatic status of DMs (ibid.) While Schiffrin (1987) pondered on the structural and linguistic role of DMs in achieving coherence, Fraser (1999) claimed that the cognitive role of these linguistic items builds text coherence (ibid.)

2.1.4.2 Relevance-based account of Discourse markers

Scholars standing on relevance-based account of DMs have argued that DMS are indicators and procedures that constrain the inferential part of the utterance interpretation by guiding the hearer/reader to recognize the intended cognitive effect with the least processing effort (Houssein, 2007) Scholars typical for this account

can be named Blakemore (1987, 1992, 2002), Blass (1990), Iten (1998), and Wilson and Sperber (1993) (Houssein, 2007)

2.1.4.2.1 Relevance theory framework

This theoretical perspective of DMs was provided by Blakemore (1987, 1992) The

term “Relevance” of this perspective is defined in terms of contextual effect and

processing effect (Blakemore, 1988) According to Blakemore (1988), contextual effects are simply the ways in which a new piece of information may interact with

contextual assumptions to yield an improvement to the hearer’s overall

representation of the world while processing effect is a function not only of the

linguistic complexity of the utterance itself, but also of the cost of accessing and using contextual assumptions in the derivation of contextual effects (Blakemore,

1988, p 105) Treating DMs as a type of Gricean conventional implicature, the

scholar focused on how DMs, discourse connectives in her language, impose

constraints and implicature (Fraser, 1999) Blakemore (1988) maintained that DMs have only their procedural meaning, which consists of instructions about how to manipulate the conceptual representation of the utterance and have no representational meaning (Blakemore, 1987, 1992, 1995, in Fraser, 1999) Maintaining that DMs should be analyzed as linguistically specified constraints on contexts, Blakemore (1992) suggested four types of DMs, which are roughly equivalent to Fraser’s (Blakemore, 1992, pp 138-141), consisting of a) allow the

derivation of a contextual implication (e.g., so, also, therefore, too); b) strengthen an existing assumption by providing better evidence for it (e.g., furthermore, after all,

moreover); c) contradict as an existing assumption (e.g., however, but, yet, nevertheless, still); and d) specify the role of the utterance in the discourse (e.g., incidentally, by the way, finally, anyway)

2.1.4.2.2 Rhetorical Structure Theory

This theory of DMs was first proposed by Mann and Thompson (1987, 1988) Other scholars in line with Mann and Thompson’s perspective of DMs included

prominently Hobb (1985), Sanders et al (1992), Knott and Dale (1994), Hovy (1995) These scholars have advocated that “the content of one sentence might provide elaboration, circumstances, or explanation for the content of another” (Knott

& Dale, 1994, in Fraser, 1999) This approach is opposite to the other three approaches mentioned above where, with the other three approaches, the linguistic items are the primary unit of the study and their effect on the interpretation of discourse is the secondary (Fraser, 1999), and, with this approach, both the number

of discourse relations and their justification has been the focus (Fraser, 1999) However, there are at least three perspectives of this approach One perspective is to identify and justify a standard set of relations; another perspective is to identify these relations as psychological constructs that people use to create texts (Fraser,

1999) With these two perspectives, these linguistic items involved are called cue

phrases instead of DMs Knot and Dale (1994) set the third perspective of this

approach when combining the two approaches, replacing cue phrases with a new term of relational phrases to call these linguistic items The two scholars carried out

elaborate analyses of these relational phrases, or discourse markers, taken from written texts to construct a hierarchical taxonomy of relational phrases in terms of their different functions for signaling discourse relations (Fraser, 1999) Remarkably, while the other scholars largely analyzed DMs used in spoken language, the scholars approaching Rhetorical Structure Theory have analyzed DMs much more focused on written texts

2.1.5 Functions of English Discourse Markers

According to Brinton (1996), the functions of DMs might be divided into two types: textual functions of language and interpersonal functions Of the two types, a textual function has eight objectives These objectives make DMs have functions of opening frame markers, closing frame markers, turn takers, fillers/turn keepers, topic switchers, information indicators, sequence/relevance markers, and repair markers

The other function of DMs, interpersonal functions, associates with the social exchange and the expression of attitudes, feelings, and evaluations (Brinton, 1996) With this function, DMs are seen as vehicles contributing to the establishment and maintenance of relationships between the speaker and hearer in spoken language when the speaker subjectively wants to express his/her attitude and interactively wants to achieve intimacy with the addressee However, in written language, where exists a distance between the writer and readers, especially in academic writing of which the ideas should be expressed objectively (Hyland, 2002), and not be allowed

to show personal opinions (Ghanbari et al, 2016), this function of DMs usually is

not considered seriously These interpersonal function DMs are considered as

“weak” markers in Oates’s (2001) terminology when the scholar targeted DMs in written language (Oates, 2001, in Lohmann & Koops, 2016) Table 2.1 below summarizes the objectives and functions of DMs in written texts based on Briton’s study (Castro, 2009; cited from Briton, 1996, pp 35 - 40)

Table 2.1: Pragmatic functions of discourse markers adapted from Briton (1996)

(source: Castro, 2009)

DMs

Textual

functions

To initiate discourse, including claiming

the attention of the hearer/reader

Opening frame markers

To aid the speaker/writer in acquiring or

relinquishing the floor

Turn takers (turn givers)

To serve as a filler or delaying tactic used

to sustain discourse or hold the floor

Fillers Turn keepers

To indicate the new topic or a partial shift in topic

Topic switchers

To denote either new and old information Information indicators

To mark sequential dependence Sequence/relevance

Back-channel signals Interpersonally, to collect cooperation

and share information

Confirmation-seekers Face-savers

(*) the words reader and writer are added by the thesis author

2.1.6 Characteristics of Discourse Markers

With the above-mentioned functions, DMs possess four main following characteristics to be distinguished from other linguistic items (Zarei, 2013):

 Connectivity: The connectivity of DMs is most often taken to be a necessary

characteristic (Schwenter, 1996, in Zarei, 2013) Hansen defined DMs as

“linguistic items of variable scope, and whose primary function is connective” (Hansen, 1997, p 160) According to Schiffrin (1987) and Fraser (1990, 1999), DMs relate two textual units, contributing to inter-utterance coherence However, using this characteristic alone to distinguish the linguistic items from coordinators joining intra-sentential elements is

insufficient (Zarei, 2013)

 Optionality: This characteristic, in fact, is claimed in two distinct senses:

semantically and syntactically (Zarei, 2013) In the semantic sense, DMs are widely claimed that their presence in the structure do not enlarge the possibilities for the semantic relationship between the elements they associate (Zarei, 2013) In the syntactic sense, the removal of a DM from a structure does not alter the grammaticality of its host sentence (Fraser, 1990, 1999)

Therefore, their presence in the text is optional

 Non-truth conditionality: DMs are generally thought to contribute nothing

to the truth-conditions of the proposition expressed by an utterance (Blakemore, 1988), meaning that DMs do not affect the truth-conditions of sentences However, with the presence of DMs truth-conditions pertain not to

sentences, but they still happen to mental representations (Blakemore, 1988)

 Weak clause association: DMs are often said to constitute independent tone

units, or to be set off from the main clause by a comma (Zarei, 2013), making them to be thought to occur “either outside the syntactic structure or loosely attached to it” (Brinton, 1996) The linguistic items, therefore, are weakly

related to the central clause element in which they occur

From the definitions, functions, and characteristics given above, it can be concluded that although researchers refer to DMs by various names in their studies due to these researchers’ different perspectives, most of them have largely agreed on the underlying properties and characteristics of DMs as well as their main functions This study, based chiefly on Fraser’s (1990, 1991) DM classification, uses the term

discourse markers to refer to such linguistic items that satisfy the aforementioned

features

2.1.7 Classifications of Discourse Markers

Although the concept of DMs has been intensively studied by many scholars all over the world, these linguistic items still have not been under the consensus among the classifying mechanisms (Fraser, 1999; Schourup, 1999; Houssein, 2007) Among

DM classifications suggested by different scholars, Fraser’s (1990, 1991, 2005, 2009) classification has been highly appropriated by many researchers when these researchers have based on the classification, usually with some revisions, to apply in their studies (Djigonuvic & Vickov, 2010; Manan & Raslee, 2017; Manan & Raslee,

2018; Ghanbari et al., 2016; Rahimi, 2011; Jalilifar, 2008; Li Feng, 2010; Matinez, 2004; Karaata et al., 2012; Patriana et al., 2016; Daif-Allah & Albesher, 2013; and

others)

2.1.7.1 Fraser’s (1990, 1991, 2005, 2009) classification

Considering DMs as “lexical adjuncts to, and are independent of, an already formed sentence” (Fraser, 1990), which signal a relationship between the segment they introduce and the prior segment in the text, Fraser classified DMs into three main classes: Topic markers, Discourse activity markers, and Message relationship

well-markers (Fraser, 1990) Noteworthily, in the article Towards a theory of discourse

markers, published in 2005, the scholar added the class of Temporal discourse

markers, but in 2009, the scholar again removed this class from his classification

- Topic markers: DMs of this class are used to signal aspects of topic change

by introducing a discourse topic or signaling a refocusing on or the emphasis

on part of the topic DMs of this type suggested by Fraser (1990), anyway,

relate much to spoken language rather than written language as back to my

original point, before I forget, in case you don’t recall, while I think of it, etc

- Discourse activity markers: DMs of this class, generally, are used to signal

the current discourse activity related to some part of the foregoing discourse (Fraser, 1999) Fraser (1999) listed seven activities of this discourse work, consisting of a) Clarifying; b) Conceding; c) Explaining; d) Interrupting; e)

Repeating; f) Sequencing; and g) Summarizing.,

- Message Relationship Markers: DMs of this class are used to signal the

relationship of the basic message conveyed by the current utterance to some prior message (Fraser, 1999) This class can be divided into four sub-classes

of Parallel markers, Contrasting markers, Elaborative markers, and Inferential markers by their own specific functions

 Parallel discourse markers: signaling that the current basic message, in some way, is parallel to some aspect of the prior discourse;

 Contrastive discourse markers: signaling a sense of “dissonance” of the current basic message from the prior discourse;

 Elaborative discourse markers: signaling that the current utterance constitutes an elaborative of an earlier one to add more information to

or explain something that exists in the prior discourse;

 Inferential discourse markers: signaling that the current utterance conveys a message which is, in some sense, consequential to some

aspect of the foregoing discourse;

- Temporal DMs: This class of DMs was considered as a subclass of DMs in

an article published in 2005, consisting of the DMs of then, after, as soon as,

before, eventually, finally, first, immediately, meantime, meanwhile, originally, second, subsequently, when (Fraser, 2005, p 197)

In short, Fraser’s classification is based on the relationship between the sentences in

the passages (Matinez, 2004; Kalajahi et al., 2012) when the class of Topic markers

tells listeners/readers the change of S2 topic from S1 topic, the class of Message relationship markers relates the S2 content to S1 one (Matinez, 2004) The class of Discourse activity markers, to some extent, expresses the interpersonal function of DMs when DMs in this class prepare listeners/readers for the speaker/writer’s purpose in the ongoing message rather than connect the content of the ongoing message to the prior message in the conversation, both verbal or written

2.1.7.2 DM classifications in studies relating to writing skills

Fraser’s (1990, 1999) perspective about DMs has been used by many researchers when these researchers investigated their students’ perceptions and use of DMs with writing skills (Djigonuvic & Vickov, 2010; Al-Khazraji, 2019; Povolna, 2012;

Manan & Raslee, 2017; Manan & Raslee, 2018; Ghanbari et al., 2016; Rahimi, 2011; Jalilifar, 2008; Li Feng, 2010; Matinez, 2004; Matinez, 2002, Karaata et al.,

2012; Patriana et al., 2016; Assadi, 2012; Asadzadian, 2017; Kalami & Noori, 2015; Iseni, 2013; Al-Owayid, 2018; Daif-Allah & Albesher, 2013; Ali & Mahadin, 2016; and others) However, when applying Fraser’s (1990, 1999) approach to DMs, these researchers have two most important revisions The first revision relates to the concept of main classes and sub-classes of DMs While Fraser’s (1990, 1999, 2009) classification has three main classes and many sub-classes, all of the other researchers have not applied this concept and considered all classes of DMs are equal to each other The second revision relates to the number of DM types With other researches, even though they are still based on Fraser’s (1990, 1999) approach

to DMs and on the main taxonomy of Fraser’s (1990, 1999) classification, the number of DM types is different from one study to another, depending on the purpose of the studies

Studying the use of DMs in argumentative and expository writing of Iranian EFL students, Rahimi (2011) classified DMs into five types, consisting of conclusive