Introduction
Background to the study
Writing is considered the most important skill that university students must develop to foster personal growth and academic success (Mukuru et al., 2006) However, it remains the most challenging skill for English as a second language learners, who face numerous difficulties in mastering it (Manan & Raslee, 2017) Researchers have identified key challenges such as grammar, punctuation, and spelling that hinder students’ progress in writing Efforts to understand these obstacles aim to provide effective strategies for both students and teachers to improve writing skills and facilitate language mastery.
2015), linguistics, cognitive and psychological problems (Rahmatunisa, 2014), the lack of time allocated to teach writing in classrooms (Almubark, 2016; Ariyanti &
Research by Fitrinati (2017) emphasizes the importance of a diverse vocabulary and mastery of conventions in mechanics for developing effective English writing skills, supported by Jacobs (1981) and Hall (1988) Many challenges that impede students from writing as fluently as native speakers are primarily intrapersonal rather than interpersonal Weigle (2002) highlights that the effectiveness of a written piece depends on these individual language competencies, underscoring the need to address internal factors in improving students’ writing abilities.
In assessing a final written product, the focus shifts from solely the writer's ability to independently use their linguistic and cognitive skills to produce appropriate texts Instead, it emphasizes the importance of utilizing all available resources, including social interactions, to create a message that effectively meets audience needs and achieves specific communicative goals.
Djigunovic and Vickov (2011) emphasized that effective use of link words and transition markers is crucial for maintaining coherence and cohesion in language They highlighted that inadequate use of these discourse markers by foreign language learners can lead to perceptions of language being deficient, dull, impolite, or awkward The scholars also raised concerns about the level of acquisition of these transitional devices among learners, underscoring their importance in achieving fluent and natural communication in a foreign language.
Choppy sentences, characterized by numerous short and simple structures, can make writing appear unsophisticated and disconnected, hindering reader comprehension and engagement (Vickov, 2011, pp 255-256; Williams, 2008) Without linking or transitional words, ideas become disjointed, making it difficult for readers to follow the flow of the argument Such writing style can lead to boredom and a lack of clarity, negatively impacting the overall effectiveness of the communication Manan and Raslee emphasize the importance of cohesive writing to maintain reader interest and ensure ideas are seamlessly connected.
(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
Using appropriate discourse markers is crucial for maintaining clear structure and organization in students’ writing Inappropriate or the absence of discourse markers can lead to confusion, making it difficult for readers to understand the author's intended message (Ayman & Khaled, 2013) Proper use of discourse markers enhances coherence, guiding the audience smoothly through ideas and arguments.
Discourse markers (DMs) are essential linguistic elements that reflect social and cultural values, playing a crucial role in the organization of native speakers’ discourses by contributing to pragmatic meaning, cohesion, and coherence in written communication Insufficient knowledge and incorrect use of DMs can lead to misunderstandings, hinder interpersonal and intercultural interactions, and impair overall communication effectiveness Due to their importance, DMs are considered an indispensable component of discourse, pragmatic competence, and overall communication skills This importance is especially pronounced in academic writing, where coherence and clarity are vital for organizing ideas effectively Ghanbari et al (2016) highlight that academic writers generally perform better than those in non-academic genres because academic texts demand specific genre conventions that involve deeper reader engagement and influence the frequency and utilization of discourse markers.
Discourse markers play a crucial role in achieving discourse coherence, yet they have been largely neglected in foreign language learning Studies by Trillo (2002), Muller (2005), and Djigunovic & Vickov (2011) highlight the importance of teaching these linguistic items to enhance learners' communicative competence and fluency Incorporating discourse markers into language instruction can significantly improve the natural flow and clarity of students' spoken and written communication Therefore, emphasizing the role of discourse markers is essential for effective foreign language acquisition and overall language proficiency.
In foreign language learning, students are typically introduced to grammatical, syntactic, morphological, and semantic aspects to produce coherent writing However, they are often not explicitly taught how to use discourse markers effectively, leading to less frequent and sometimes incorrect usage compared to native speakers As a result, non-native learners tend to underuse discourse markers (Weinert, 1998) and may employ them in inappropriate ways that native speakers would rarely use (Yang, 2005).
Statement of the problem
Coherence is essential for maintaining a smooth flow of ideas within a passage, making it easier for readers to follow the content (Asadzadian, 2017) This coherence in writing stems from the effective use of linguistic items known as discourse markers, as identified by Schiffrin (1987), who described them as words that "do not easily fit into a linguistic class." These discourse markers play a crucial role in organizing and connecting ideas, ensuring that the writing remains cohesive and comprehensible.
Discourse markers play a crucial role in creating discourse coherence, which is essential for effective academic writing (Karaata et al., 2012; Schiffrin, 1987) These linguistic items focus on enhancing coherence at the writing level, ensuring logical flow and clarity in academic text (Al-Khazraji, 2019) However, studies indicate that students often prioritize vocabulary and sentence-level features over overall textual coherence in English classes, which can impact the quality of their academic writing (Al-Khazraji, 2019).
Research indicates that while discourse markers (DMs) are essential for effective essay and academic writing, their application remains challenging for second language English learners (Cho, 1998; Bolton, Nelson & Hung, 2002; Narita, Sato & Sugiura, 2004, cited in Patriana et al., 2016) In Vietnam, students tend to focus more on cohesion than on coherence, often neglecting the significance of DMs in creating logical flow (Phan, 2011) Studies suggest that explicit instruction in discourse markers can significantly improve university students’ writing abilities (Karaata, Cepik & Cetin, 2012); however, learners remain largely unaware of their importance in developing writing competence (Albesher et al., 2017) The linguistic features of discourse markers have been little studied within the Vietnamese educational context, especially among USSH students, who are future English teachers, leaving educators without sufficient knowledge about students’ perceptions and use of DMs Moreover, teaching periods dedicated to the effective use of discourse markers are often underprioritized, and similar undervaluation of DMs is observed in other countries, as highlighted by various researchers (Kalajahi & Abdullah, 2012; Asadzadian, 2017; Alipour & Jalilifar, 2007; Albesher et al., 2017; Daif-Allah & Albesher, 2013).
This thesis aims to expand current understanding of university students' perceptions and usage of English discourse markers, particularly in relation to their writing skills Emphasizing academic writing within the USSH context, the study highlights the importance of discourse markers in enhancing coherence and clarity in students' written communication By exploring students' attitudes and practices, this research provides valuable insights into how discourse markers influence the effectiveness of academic writing for university learners.
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:
This study aims to explore students’ perceptions of discourse markers (DMs) in essay writing by assessing their ability to identify DMs in experimental tasks It investigates students' understanding of the practical and pedagogical importance of DMs, their knowledge of the characteristics and functions of DMs within texts, and their attitudes towards learning and using these linguistic features The research seeks to provide insights into how students perceive the role of DMs in enhancing coherence and cohesion in academic writing.
This study aims to analyze students' use of discourse markers (DMs) in their essays by examining their overall frequency and specific categories The research seeks to identify how often DMs appear in student texts and categorize the types of DMs used, providing insights into their role in enhancing coherence and cohesion By understanding the patterns of DM usage, the study contributes to improving writing skills and instructional strategies The findings will offer valuable data for educators to better support students in utilizing discourse markers effectively in academic writing.
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.
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?
Significance of the study
Effective use of discourse markers is essential for achieving coherence and cohesion in writing, which helps to communicate ideas clearly to the audience (Manan & Raslee, 2011) This study aims to raise awareness among Vietnamese university students about the importance of properly applying discourse markers in their English writing By doing so, students can convey their ideas more coherently and cohesively, improving the overall quality of their written communication.
This study aims to provide valuable insights into students’ knowledge and application of discourse markers in essay writing Observations indicate that discourse markers are often overlooked in academic writing, primarily perceived as grammatical elements rather than essential tools for effective composition While incorporating discourse markers can significantly enhance the clarity and structure of academic texts (Swan, 2005; Wei, 2013; Asadzadian, 2017; Manan & Raslee, 2017), their neglect may diminish the overall quality and communicative effectiveness of students’ written work.
Scope of the study
This study focuses exclusively on students' perceptions and use of discourse markers in written language within the context of learning academic writing at USSH's full-time program It examines how students incorporate discourse markers when composing 500-word essays as part of their coursework, despite the existence of various academic writing genres While discourse markers are relevant in both spoken and written communication, this research specifically investigates their role in academic writing tasks assigned by lecturers.
This study investigates the relationship between students’ perceptions and their use of discourse markers, analyzing their questionnaire responses and writing samples It focuses solely on discourse markers and does not consider students' course results, as these are influenced by various factors beyond discourse marker usage The research aims to understand how students’ perceptions relate to their application of discourse markers in academic writing.
This study intentionally excludes the manner in which lecturers instruct students about discourse markers, despite acknowledging that such instructions can significantly influence students’ perceptions and usage of discourse markers (Manan & Raslee, 2017, 2018; Asadzadian, 2017) This delimitation is justified because instructional methods vary between lecturers, and many researchers (Trillo, 2005; Muller, 2005; Djigunovic & Vickov, 2011) have highlighted that discourse marker usage is often overlooked in student writing Additionally, since most discourse markers are considered part of grammar, students typically receive prior instruction in earlier semesters, reducing the focus on this aspect in the current study.
Definitions of key terms
In this study, the following terms are used with their specific meaning:
Perception, as defined by Qiong (2017), is the process of gaining awareness or understanding of sensory information In this study, students' perceptions specifically relate to their views on discourse markers (DMs), including their significance and application in writing English essays Understanding students' perceptions of DMs is crucial for improving writing proficiency and academic communication.
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.
Organization of thesis chapters
The thesis titled "The Perceptions and Use of Discourse Markers in Essay Writing by English Majors at the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature, University of Social Sciences and Humanities, National University Ho Chi Minh City," is systematically organized into five comprehensive chapters This study explores how English majors perceive and utilize discourse markers to enhance essay coherence and cohesion It provides insights into the students' understanding and application of discourse markers in academic writing, highlighting their significance in effective communication The research offers valuable findings for educators aiming to improve teaching strategies related to discourse markers, thereby boosting students' writing skills Overall, the thesis contributes to the field of English linguistics by emphasizing the importance of discourse markers in academic essays.
Chapter 1, titled Introduction, lays the foundation of the thesis by presenting the background of the research topic, defining the core problem, and establishing the study's aims and objectives It clearly formulates the primary research questions and highlights the significance of the study Additionally, this chapter introduces key terms with specific meanings relevant to the research, ensuring clarity and context for readers.
This chapter reviews the theoretical literature on discourse markers, highlighting the main scholarly approaches and classification methods used to categorize these linguistic elements It examines various frameworks and categories proposed by researchers to analyze discourse markers effectively Additionally, previous studies are referenced to provide a solid background and context for understanding the field The chapter concludes with a conceptual framework that will guide the analysis in subsequent chapters, establishing a foundation for future research.
Chapter 3 outlines the research design developed to address the three research questions introduced in Chapter 1, ensuring a focused and systematic approach It describes the selection of the respondent sample and details the statistical instruments employed to collect and analyze data These methodological details are crucial for achieving valid and reliable results in the study, enhancing its overall credibility and accuracy.
Chapter 4 comprises two essential sections: the first focuses on analyzing data obtained from student questionnaires and essays, providing in-depth insights into participant responses; the second discusses the statistical analysis results, offering key findings that help address the study’s main research questions effectively.
Chapter 5 serves as the concluding section of the thesis, summarizing key findings related to learning and teaching discourse markers It offers valuable suggestions for students and lecturers to enhance their understanding and application of discourse markers in educational settings Additionally, the chapter proposes ideas for future research to address the study's limitations and broaden the scope of investigation in this field.
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.
Literature review
English Discourse markers
The study of discourse markers (DMs) has become a rapidly growing area in linguistics, with numerous scholarly articles published annually However, the terminology surrounding DMs varies among researchers, leading to multiple definitions and classifications (Fraser, 1999) Key terms used to describe these linguistic items include sentence connectives (Halliday & Hasan, 1976), discourse signaling devices (Polanyi & Scha, 1983), pragmatic connectives (Stubbs, 1983), semantic conjuncts (Quirk et al., 1985), and discourse particles (Schourup, 1985) This variety of terminology reflects the complexity and evolving understanding of DMs within the field.
Aijmer, 2002), pragmatic markers (Schiffrin, 1987), pragmatic expressions (Erman,
Pragmatic markers, such as those discussed by Schiffrin (1987), Fraser (1988, 1990), and Blakemore (1987, 1992), play a crucial role in structuring discourse and signaling relationships between ideas Connectives, including phatic connectives identified by Bazanella (1990), serve to establish coherence and facilitate smooth communication Discourse operators, as explored by Redeker (1990, 1991), and pragmatic operators highlighted by Ariel (1994), are vital in managing conversational flow and speaker intent Cue phrases, introduced by Knott and Dale (1994), further guide listeners or readers through complex information Additionally, pragmatic particles, discussed by Ostman (1995), and connectors, studied by Biber et al (1999), including conjunctive adverbials, contribute to the cohesive fabric of written and spoken language, enabling clearer and more effective communication.
(Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999), connectives (Huddleton & Pullum, 2002), discourse connectors (Cowan, 2008; Kalajani et al., 2012), discourse markers
The diversity in defining and classifying discourse markers (DMs) has led to various approaches within the research community (Fraser, 1990; Fraser, 1999) Consequently, scholars have adopted different methods to categorize DMs, reflecting the ongoing debate and evolving understanding of their functions in communication Understanding these diverse perspectives is essential for comprehensive analysis of discourse markers in linguistic studies.
While scholars generally agree that discourse markers (DMs) are lexical expressions related to discourse segments, ongoing debates persist regarding their classification and function (Fraser, 1999) Controversies arise from inconsistent terminology and differing perspectives on whether DMs should be categorized by grammatical type, meaning, or their role within discourse (Schourup, 1999) These disagreements highlight fundamental challenges in defining and delimiting DMs, especially concerning the types of meaning they convey and their grammatical classification (Schourup, 1999; Houssein).
2007, p 75) These disagreements have led to different mechanisms to define DMs and classify types of DMs
Discourse markers are words and phrases that "signpost" discourse by connecting ideas, indicating turns, and conveying the speaker’s or writer's attitude, ultimately controlling communication (Jucker & Ziv, 1998) They are linguistic items that are difficult to categorize within traditional word classes but are essential for demonstrating relationships between clauses and sentence elements (British Council, 2019; Bauer-Ramazani, 2013) Skillful use of discourse markers reflects higher fluency and an ability to produce authentic language, as they help connect current and prior speech or writing, facilitating coherence and clarity in communication.
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)
Schiffrin (2001) defines discourse markers as non-obligatory, utterance-initial items that relate to ongoing talk and text, encompassing a variety of word classes such as conjunctions, adverbs, interjections, and lexicalized phrases Meanwhile, Aijmer (2002), employing a bottom-up approach, refers to these linguistic items as discourse particles, describing them as a class of words characterized by distinct formal, functional, and pragmatic properties.
(1990, 1999), labeling these linguistic items as discourse markers, cogitated that
Discourse markers (DMs) are pragmatic lexical expressions that signal relationships such as contrast, implication, or elaboration between different segments of conversation or text (Fraser, 1999) Cowan (2008) distinguishes discourse markers from discourse connectors by defining them as words used to perform specific conversational functions, including topic shifting, expressing attitude, pausing, or repairing utterances According to Tannen et al (2015), discourse markers serve crucial roles across social, expressive, textual, and cognitive domains, reflecting how speakers or writers manage, organize, and monitor information during communication.
In 2013, a grammarian examined discourse markers (DMs) as essential linguistic tools that express specific meaning relationships between clauses, facilitating clause combination and sentence cohesion He classified DMs into four syntactic types, with coordinating conjunctions being a primary example These lexical expressions play a crucial role in connecting sentence elements and enhancing coherence in written and spoken language Understanding the function and classification of DMs is vital for improving linguistic analysis and effective communication.
2) connectors; 3) subordinating conjunctions, and 4) phrase linkers to signal the meaning relationship of contrast, reason, addition, similarity, concession (unexpected results), and time
Discourse markers, also known as discourse connectives or cue phrases, share two key properties: they can be removed without affecting sentence grammar and they function as two-placed relations that establish connections between a current discourse segment (S2) and a previous one (S1) According to Fraser (1999), these properties form the basis for defining discourse markers Based on these insights, Fraser proposed four essential criteria to identify and classify discourse markers effectively.
Although a Discourse Marker (DM) usually connects a specific segment to its immediate predecessor, it can sometimes relate to multiple subsequent segments, enhancing the coherence of the discourse This broader function of DMs ensures clearer communication by linking not just the current segment but also following ones, thereby improving overall text cohesion Understanding the varied roles of DMs is essential for effective discourse analysis and contributes to more precise SEO-focused content about language and communication.
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
The grammatical status of discourse segments remains a contentious issue among scholars While there is consensus that coordinating conjunctions function as discourse markers (DMs), opinions diverge regarding subordinating conjunctions Fraser (1999) proposed that expressions like since, because, while, and unless are DMs when they allow both canonical forms: [S1 (comma) DM + S2] and [DM + S2 (comma) S1] Bauer-Ramazani (2013) supported this view, asserting that subordinating conjunctions serve as DMs regardless of their position in the sentence However, this perspective is not universally accepted, as Swan (1995, 2005) argued that "[as/since + clause]" functions as a DM at the beginning of sentences with a comma, especially when the reason is already familiar to the listener or reader.
When [since/because/while/unless/if] + clause appears at the end of a sentence without a preceding comma, the clause's information relates directly to the prior part of the sentence, meaning removing it alters the intended message In contrast, with the canonical structure [since/because/while/unless/if + clause, S1], the clause can be omitted without affecting the sentence's grammatical correctness or meaning Notably, Fraser’s earlier research (Fraser, 1990; Fraser, 1991) discusses the importance of clause placement in conveying clear and accurate information.
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
Fraser (1999) highlights that certain expressions like "frankly," "fortunately," and "stupidly" can function similarly to discourse markers (DMs), but they should not be classified as DMs These expressions can appear in various positions within a sentence—initial, after the subject, or at the end—yet, they are not considered DMs unless they signal a two-placed relationship between adjacent discourse segments Understanding this distinction is essential for accurate discourse analysis and comprehension.
While some researchers consider certain expressions as attitudinal discourse markers (DMs), others, such as Fraser (1999), classify them as logical or causative connectives Fraser (1999) recommends using expressions like "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)," and "instead of (this/that).” These expressions often appear in the canonical form [S1 (full stop) DM + S2], serving to clarify relationships such as cause, contrast, or consequence within a sentence The debate over their classification highlights the nuanced role these expressions play in enhancing coherence and coherence in discourse.
Direct messages (DMs) are often misunderstood; when "DMs" function solely as a preposition with a nominalization form from S1 as its object, they do not introduce a separate message (Fraser, 1999) However, researchers like Martinez (2004) and Ali and Mahadin (2016) classify "DMs" as discourse markers (DMs), specifically attitudinal DMs, highlighting their role in conveying speaker attitude rather than serving as prepositional phrases.
2.1.2 Discourse markers and Cohesive devices
Conceptual framework of the study
This study investigates the perceptions and utilization of direct messages (DMs) in essay writing among English majors at USSH, many of whom are future English teachers The research aims to understand how DMs influence writing practices and student engagement By exploring students' attitudes towards DMs, the study provides insights into their role as a tool for enhancing academic writing skills The findings highlight the significance of social media communication in modern language learning and its potential impact on essay composition This research contributes valuable knowledge for educators aiming to integrate digital communication tools into language instruction.
Direct messages (DMs), as linguistic items that do not easily fit into traditional grammatical categories (Schiffrin, 1987), have been analyzed through two primary frameworks: the coherence-based account and the relevance-based account These approaches offer different perspectives on how DMs function within communication, highlighting their unique role in conveying meaning and maintaining conversational flow Understanding these accounts is essential for researchers and content creators aiming to improve online communication strategies and enhance user engagement.
Scholars like Fraser (1987, 1990) primarily focus on discourse markers (DMs) in written language, while Blakemore (1987, 1992, 2002) and Schiffrin (1987, 2002) emphasize spoken language Understanding these linguistic items requires considering both perspectives, as the Relevance-based approach highlights the relationships between discourse segments, whereas the Coherence-based approach emphasizes the cohesive aspects of discourse Integrating both accounts provides a comprehensive understanding of how discourse markers function in different communication contexts.
This study investigates students’ perceptions of discourse markers (DMs) and their use of DMs in essay writing, aligning with the functions and characteristics outlined by Blakemore (1987), Brinton (1996), and Zarei (2013) It examines five key factors: the functions of DMs, their characteristics, students’ attitudes towards DMs, their pedagogical importance, and practical applications Additionally, the research applies Fraser’s (1990, 1991, 1999, 2005, 2009) classification of DMs, adapting it specifically for essay writing to analyze the students’ use of DMs in their essays The adapted classification, primarily based on Fraser’s 1999, 2005, and 2009 frameworks, includes five types: contrastive, elaborative, inferential, temporal, and topic change DMs This approach aims to meet course requirements where students must develop a cohesive five-paragraph, approximately 500-word essay under timed exam conditions, emphasizing both the functional roles and practical usage of DMs in academic writing.
Figure 2.1 below with a flowchart illustrates the conceptual framework for the study
Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework of the study
Characteristics of DMs Functions of DMs Learning attitudes towards DMs Pedagogical values of DMs
FUNCTIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF DMs
Coherence-based account (Schiffrin, 1987; Fraser, 1987, 1990)
ADAPTED DMs CLASSIFICATION in ESSAY WRITING
STUDENTS’ USE OF DMs IN ESSAY WRITING
Commonness and differences in using DMs Inappropriateness in using DMs
