INTRODUCTION
Background to the study
Writing has become essential over the decades, enhancing communicative and critical thinking skills (Nunan, 1989) It serves as a powerful medium for communication in various settings, including the workplace, schools, and communities (Fraser, 1999; Rahimi, 2011) Whether sending messages, creating special cards, or writing essays, fundamental writing skills enable individuals to express their emotions and convey their intended messages effectively.
Writing is generally more challenging than speaking because it lacks the non-verbal cues like facial expressions and gestures that help convey meaning According to Promas and Sinwongsuwat (2014), effective writing relies on well-structured and cohesive text Additionally, students, even at lower levels, need to learn how to compose various forms of writing, including informal and formal letters, short paragraphs, and essays Therefore, it is essential to emphasize writing lessons to enhance students' writing competence.
In Vietnam, the Ministry of Education and Training has implemented a policy mandating English language instruction starting from Grade 3 (Nguyen Mai Thi Hoa, 2011) Vietnamese teachers frequently prioritize grammar over encouraging students to complete writing assignments (Le Van Canh, 2011) This teacher-centered approach has long been a hallmark of Vietnamese education, resulting in low student participation (To Thi Thu Huong).
2010) Learners are asked to repeat, memorize and recite what they learnt form the
2 textbook and from their teachers, especially about grammatical rules, grammatical accuracy (Duong Thi Hoang Oanh & Nguyen Thu Hien, 2006; Pham Hoa Hiep,
In 2007, it was observed that students may develop a deep understanding of grammatical concepts, yet struggle to integrate these insights into cohesive essays This challenge is often attributed to a lack of vocabulary and cohesive devices (Tran Nu Ly Na, 2015) Furthermore, insufficient mastery of syntax and semantics can lead to decreased self-confidence in writing abilities (Rico, 2014).
In today's globalized world, studying abroad has become increasingly popular among Vietnamese students According to a report from the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET), the number of Vietnamese students enrolled in higher education overseas rose from 104,500 in 2013 to 130,000 in 2016, reflecting a steady growth trend.
Figure 1.1: Number of overseas students in Vietnam, 2013 - 2016
To expand their horizons and enhance their understanding of diverse cultures, many individuals aspire to study at esteemed universities abroad According to the visitor statistics from the BMI Global Education Fair Vietnam in March 2019, Vietnamese students exhibit varied interests in international study programs.
Before applying for any institutions, learners need to undertake International Tests including International English Language Testing System (IELTS), Test of English
The International English Language Testing System (IELTS) has emerged as a leading test for non-native speakers seeking to study or migrate to English-speaking countries, as highlighted by Le Van Canh (2017) and supported by Moore (2005), who noted the increasing number of educational institutions requiring IELTS for overseas students Its popularity can be attributed to its specific focus on assessing language proficiency necessary for academic and professional success, in contrast to other tests like TOEFL, which is primarily accepted in the US, Canada, France, and Germany for higher education, and TOEIC, which caters to individuals needing basic English skills for graduation or employment.
In 2020, many universities have updated their enrollment criteria, accepting IELTS scores as a requirement (source: www.ieltsasia.com) Students with an IELTS score of 4 or higher are exempt from the national English requirement, while graduates need a minimum score of 5.5 This has led to a rise in IELTS language centers and home classrooms in Vietnam to meet the growing demand The IELTS test consists of two modules: Academic and General Training, each requiring candidates to complete two writing tasks Task 1 in the General Training module involves writing a letter, whereas in the Academic module, it entails summarizing data from graphs or charts Task 2 is identical for both modules This study focuses specifically on the use of Discourse Markers (DMs) in writing task 2, rather than analyzing the components of writing task 1.
The main root of this issue can be explained that Vietnamese students are in dearth of essential writing skills Thus, Vietnamese students failed to achieve high
Vietnamese candidates have consistently struggled with the writing component of international exams, as evidenced by recent IELTS data from 2012 and 2018 According to sources such as ielts.org, saigonenglish.com, and blc.english.com, the average scores for each skill highlight this ongoing challenge.
Years Listening Reading Writing Speaking OVERALL
To create a well-organized text, it is essential to consider coherence and cohesion According to Halliday and Hasan (1976) in "Cohesion in English," there are five main cohesive devices in English discourse: reference, substitution, ellipsis, lexical cohesion, and conjunction The unity of both oral and written discourse is achieved through the use of discourse markers (DMs), which are expressions like "well," "though," and "honestly speaking" that connect and clarify segments of discourse The effectiveness of written texts in being persuasive, comprehensible, and explanatory is largely due to the appropriate use of these DMs (Zienkowski, Ostman & Verschueren, 2011).
Many IELTS students often misuse connectors and cohesive devices in their writing To improve their performance, it is essential to provide proper instruction on these discourse markers, enabling them to use them more effectively during the exam.
“Writing a letter is time-consuming In addition to this , it is meaningful.”
The second sentence tells us the contrary, so the sentence should be corrected by using However or on the contrary
“Writing a letter is time-consuming On the contrary , it is meaningful.”
A key reason for writing difficulties is the lack of effective management of cohesion, which negatively affects both writing tests and overall scores Modhish (2012) highlights that the coherence and cohesion of an essay can be enhanced by the proper use of discourse markers Similarly, Kies supports this finding, underscoring the importance of these elements in essay writing.
According to research by Melor and Siti Nor Fatimad (2014), a lack of understanding of discourse markers (DMs) significantly affects students' writing quality, leading to misuse, underuse, or overuse of these essential elements This highlights the importance of effectively teaching DMs to enhance coherence in student writing.
Non-native writers often face grammatical errors when using discourse markers in their essays, resulting in lower grades (1992) Corder (1967) emphasizes that identifying fundamental errors is crucial for enhancing teaching methods and fostering self-improvement in learning.
This study examines the perception and use of English Discourse Markers in essays written by EFL learners preparing for the IELTS test, addressing the low scores often observed in the writing section Given the increasing demand for IELTS proficiency, the findings aim to significantly enhance teaching strategies and improve students' writing skills.
Statement of the problem
Writing is a complex skill influenced by numerous internal and external factors (Nunan, 1989) Students enrolled in a four-month IELTS preparation course at A Chau language face these challenges as they work to enhance their writing abilities.
Many centers face challenges in achieving satisfactory IELTS writing scores In these classrooms, students lack access to textbooks, as teachers must create presentations for each lesson Consequently, instructors are tasked with improvising lessons by sourcing materials from various textbooks After conducting several courses at this center, the researcher has observed that students, despite their diverse backgrounds and reasons for studying, encounter similar difficulties in their writing skills.
The outdated teaching methods and assessment practices in Vietnam significantly affect students' language skills As a result, students must focus on improving their grammatical accuracy and writing skills However, their reluctance to memorize information can stifle creativity and lead to misunderstandings in word usage and discourse markers.
At A Chau language center, IELTS preparation course learners often struggle with writing tasks due to a lack of understanding of discourse markers (DMs) and their importance in achieving coherence and cohesion Many students fail to use DMs accurately, leading to diminished writing outcomes It is crucial to recognize DMs as significant linguistic elements alongside other traits Despite their importance, there is a lack of research on this specific learner population Therefore, this study aims to explore EFL learners' perceptions and usage of DMs in their essays during the IELTS preparation course.
Research Objectives of the study
This study investigates EFL learners' perceptions of discourse markers (DMs) in academic writing and their application in essays, particularly within IELTS preparation courses The primary objective is to assess students' academic writing abilities by analyzing how they utilize DMs effectively.
7 this study are as follows:
To investigate EFL learners‟ perception of DMs in English essays in an IELTS preparation course at A Chau language center regarding pragmatic value, indispensable value and learning value of DMs
To examine how EFL learners in an IELTS preparation course use DMs in writing English essays in terms of types, functions and appropriateness.
Research questions
In order to achieve the aforementioned objectives, the following research questions must be addressed:
(1) What are EFL learners‟ perception of DMs in English essays in an IELTS preparation course at A Chau language center regarding pragmatic value, indispensable value and learning value of DMs?
(2) How do EFL learners in an IELTS preparation course at A Chau language center use DMs in writing English essays in terms of types, functions and the appropriateness?
Scope of the study
This study focuses on the writing skills of EFL learners, specifically examining their perception and use of discourse markers in IELTS preparation courses It analyzes the types, functions, and appropriateness of these markers in English essay writing, excluding other writing forms The research was conducted at A Chau Language Center, Le Van Khuong campus, emphasizing the significance of discourse markers in enhancing essay quality for IELTS assessments.
Ho Chi Minh City 60 participants, who took foundation classes, were
The study focuses on a homogeneous group of learners aged 15 to 25 with similar language competence With over three years of experience teaching IELTS at this center, the researcher aims to explore learners' awareness and their tendency to submit direct messages (DMs) in writing.
Significance of the study
This study focuses on EFL learners' perceptions of discourse markers (DMs) and their usage in writing, examining types, functions, and correctness The findings aim to enhance English teaching and learning by providing teachers with insights into students' tendencies regarding DMs, ultimately leading to improved teaching methods (Etherton, 1977) A deeper understanding of these aspects will enable educators to adopt effective teaching approaches that strengthen students' writing skills, particularly in the use of DMs Additionally, recognizing students' common challenges related to errors will help teachers design appropriate course outlines tailored to each learning stage Given that students of the same age and language may face similar issues (Abbot, 1980, p.21), this study also contributes to the analysis of DMs in the educational field.
This study highlights the crucial role of discourse markers (DMs) in essay writing, emphasizing their potential to improve learners' writing skills According to Corder (1967), it is essential to correct errors to prevent fossilization, which can hinder writing development.
Learning from mistakes is essential to stay on track, as writing and reading skills are interconnected Strong writing abilities enhance a learner's comprehension of lengthy reading passages, particularly in the IELTS exam Consequently, learners equipped with effective writing skills are better prepared to tackle complex texts.
9 listening well in spite of various traps in IELTS exam by recognizing the implication of use of DMs
Throughout this study, there are some key terms, which will be explained as follows:
Appropriateness in discourse markers (DMs) involves their correct and suitable use in compositions Misapplication can occur through incorrect relationships, distractions, overuse, non-equivalent exchanges, semantic incompleteness, and superficial logic.
Discourse markers are essential words or phrases that facilitate the coherence of discourse A detailed classification of English discourse markers examined in this study can be found in Chapter 2.
English as a Foreign Language Learners (EFL) is primarily utilized to mention about learners refer to a learner whose mother tongue is Vietnamese and they participate the IELTS course in Vietnam
IELTS format essays are extended writings centered around specific themes In this study, students composed two essays discussing how new technologies influence children's leisure activities and the implications of tourism growth on developing nations.
The International English Language Testing System (IELTS) is a standardized test designed to assess the language proficiency of non-native English speakers aiming to pursue higher education or seek employment in English-speaking countries.
Perception refers to the way learners think and their understanding of Discourse Markers used in IELTS essays in relation to Pragmatic value, Indispensable value and Learning value of DMs
This thesis comprises five key chapters, a list of references and appendices aside from the acknowledgment, the abstract, the list of figures and tables
The introduction of the study outlines the general background and identifies the problem that the research addresses, leading to the main topic of examination It establishes research objectives and poses relevant research questions to guide the investigation Additionally, the chapter delineates the scope of the study and highlights its significance while providing definitions for key terms essential to understanding the research.
The second chapter, Literature Review, provides a comprehensive summary of key studies related to Discourse and Discourse Analysis, focusing on definitions, characteristics, approaches, classifications, and functions of Discourse Markers (DMs) in writing It emphasizes the significance of essay writing and the role of DMs in IELTS writing Additionally, the chapter critiques past research controversies, highlighting existing gaps in the field To ensure a clear and structured investigation, a conceptual framework for the study is presented.
The Methodology chapter outlines the research process, detailing the study's design and site It covers the sampling procedures utilized and the research instruments employed, including questionnaires and student essay analyses Following this, the chapter describes the data collection and analysis procedures It also presents the research framework and justifies its application, concluding with a discussion on the study's reliability and validity.
The fourth Chapter (Findings and Discussion) presents the results of the research The discussion about the similarities and differences in the findings is denoted based on the aforementioned literature
The fifth Chapter (Conclusion) recapitulates the major findings of this study
Hence, some pedagogical implications for EFL learners and teachers are pinpointed Subsequently, the limitations of this study are outlined Some recommendations for further studies are simultaneously suggested.
Organization of the study
This thesis comprises five key chapters, a list of references and appendices aside from the acknowledgment, the abstract, the list of figures and tables
The introduction of the study presents the background and outlines the problem that the research addresses It establishes research objectives and poses relevant questions to guide the investigation Additionally, the scope of the study is defined, highlighting its boundaries and focus The chapter also emphasizes the significance of the research and includes definitions of key terms to ensure clarity and understanding.
The second chapter, titled Literature Review, provides a comprehensive summary of key studies related to Discourse, focusing on Discourse Analysis and Discourse Markers It explores definitions, characteristics, approaches, classifications, and functions, as well as the significance of essay writing and the role of Discourse Markers in both general writing and IELTS writing The chapter also addresses controversies in previous research, highlighting gaps in the field To facilitate a clear and structured investigation, a conceptual framework for the study is established.
Chapter Three (Methodology) outlines the research process, detailing the study's design and site It describes the sample and sampling procedures utilized, as well as the research instruments, including questionnaires and student essay analyses The chapter further explains the data collection and analysis procedures Additionally, it presents the research framework and justifies its selection, concluding with a discussion on the reliability and validity of the study.
The fourth Chapter (Findings and Discussion) presents the results of the research The discussion about the similarities and differences in the findings is denoted based on the aforementioned literature
The fifth Chapter (Conclusion) recapitulates the major findings of this study
Hence, some pedagogical implications for EFL learners and teachers are pinpointed Subsequently, the limitations of this study are outlined Some recommendations for further studies are simultaneously suggested
LITERATURE REVIEW
Discourse and Discourse Analysis
Discourse is a linguistic unit that extends beyond a single sentence and can range from a few words to thousands, as seen in novels (Baker & Ellece, 2011; Hinkel & Fortos, 2001) The definition and application of discourse vary among authors, with a consensus that it should be utilized in both spoken and written forms (Richard, 2006; Richardson, 2007) Cameron (2001) emphasizes that discourse is a structured use of language with unique characteristics, while Schiffrin (1994) identifies structuralism and functionalism as two primary approaches to understanding discourse, favoring the functionalist perspective Nunan (2001) adds that discourse is influenced by the context of communication and user experience, cautioning against the notion that discourse markers solely dictate word usage.
Discourse Analysis is a complex field characterized by diverse theories and conceptual frameworks According to McCarthy (1991), it examines the harmony of language portrayal beyond individual sentences, considering the relevance of specific situations and the social influences that shape language use The term "discourse analysis" was first introduced by Harris in 1952 as a method for exploring the connections between spoken and written communication, extending beyond sentence-level analysis to include the interplay between semantic and non-linguistic behaviors.
Discourse analysis, as described by Fromkin, Rodman, and Hyams (2003), examines how writers and presenters connect sentences and phrases to create comprehensive discussions This analytical approach helps researchers identify key aspects of discourse markers, including register, correctness, cohesiveness, and differences between written essays and spoken speeches Additionally, it highlights the importance of grammatical appropriateness and other factors that influence linguistic meaning, such as pronouns, situational context, discourse acts, and deixis.
Discourse Markers
Discourse markers (DMs) have been a fascinating subject of study in writing, with researchers defining them in various ways based on their specific fields of inquiry Halliday and Hasan (1976) initially characterized DMs as sentence connectors, while Schourup (2016) referred to them as discourse particles These linguistic elements, often seen as redundant, play a crucial role in facilitating the flow of conversation, with each particle serving a distinct function in communication.
In various popular articles, discourse markers (DMs) serve as conversational particles, as described by Schourup (1999), discourse particles defined by Siegel (2002), and pragmatic devices identified by Stubble and Hoimes These elements play a significant role in shaping the speaker's opinion and anticipation within the conversation.
(1995), „discourse connective‟ suggested by Blakemore (1987), „discourse operator‟ defined by Redeker (1991) and “pragmatic formative‟ „pragmatic marker‟ by Fraser (1987 & 1996, respectively)
Discourse markers (DMs) are essential cue phrases that facilitate communication at the discourse level, as emphasized by Knott and Dale (1994) Expressions such as "by the way," "for example," "in summary," and "on the other hand" serve to create connections between sentences and enhance the overall coherence of a text Redeker (1990) identifies their core functions as linking separate clauses and integrating sentences within a contiguous context Additionally, Fraser (1999) refers to DMs as conjunctions, prepositional phrases, or adverbs that are used to connect individual sentences or coordinate words within the same clause.
Discourse markers (DMs) are essential words and expressions that structure communication and establish relationships within a text (Swan, 2005) According to Schiffrin (1987), DMs play a crucial role in enhancing learners' writing skills Further exploration in this area is provided by Ali et al.
Discourse Markers (DMs) play a crucial role in enhancing learners' writing skills by effectively connecting sentences and passages (2012) Tannen et al (2015) describe DMs as a collection of semantic elements that function across various domains, including Communal, Communicative, Literal, and Intellectual.
Fraser (1999) identifies various terms for discourse markers (DMs), including sentence connectives, cue phrases, and pragmatic connectives Regardless of their labels, these elements serve to link sentences and expressions, functioning primarily as conjunctions to enhance coherence in communication.
Discourse markers (DMs) play a crucial role in essay writing by linking distinct parts of a text and conveying mutual meaning According to Fraser (1999), common types of DMs include those that indicate addition, contradiction, agreement, disagreement, problems and solutions, as well as cause and effect relationships The placement of these markers is influenced by the writer's perspective, helping to create coherence and clarity in the writing.
Discourse markers (DMs) play a crucial role in connecting different segments of text and facilitating interaction between writers and readers or speakers and listeners These pragmatic elements contribute to the development of various syntactic structures, despite being referred to by different names by various prominent authors Their essential function in enhancing coherence and cohesion in writing serves as a fundamental basis for this study.
Fraser's (1999) investigation significantly influences this research by exploring the relationship between discourse elements in essays Delahunty (2012) supports Fraser's definition, highlighting its relevance in the field This indicates that discourse markers (DMs) serve not only as conjunctions but also as pragmatic tools that enhance readers' comprehension of a text's meanings.
Discourse markers (DMs) exhibit inherent ambiguity due to their diverse nomenclature, which can lead to discrepancies in meaning among writers While some may provide synonyms for DMs, others highlight significant differences in their interpretations For instance, DMs are categorized as a linguistic subclass designed to delineate utterances and hedges (Carter & McCarthy, 1994) Aijmer (2002) further emphasizes that the features of DMs play a crucial role in understanding their meanings.
DMs stem from the purpose use of writers Adopting from a different angle, DMS embrace a wide range of linguistic components (Jucker &Ziv, 1985)
Much of the literature on discourse markers (DMs) focuses on their definitions, often treating them as uniform verbal distinctions Schiffrin's (1987) broad characterization of DMs has faced criticism, as she describes them as interdependent elements that function as connections among individual components within a dialogue.
1991) and her work was also rejected by Lenk (1998) since she ignores the momentous character of DMS in unifying discourse at a comprehensive degree
Despite varying definitions and terminology, discourse markers (DMs) exhibit common characteristics and fundamental features, as highlighted in studies by Brinton (1996), Jucker and Ziv (1998), and Schourup.
According to Schourup (1999) and Kohlani (2010), discourse markers (DMs) share several key characteristics, including connectivity, multi-categoriality, optionality, weak clause association, non-truth-conditionality, orality, and initiality These features highlight the importance of DMs in facilitating the connection between utterances, demonstrating their crucial role in effective communication.
Connectivity in text can be viewed from various perspectives, with Kohlani (2010) asserting that discourse markers (DMs) connect literary units by highlighting their relationships However, these markers do not merely link text segments; they also facilitate the overall interpretation of the work Thus, connectivity may manifest in diverse forms rather than a straightforward relationship between two content parts Schourup (1999) offers a comprehensive analysis of DMs, underscoring their significance in establishing connectivity and distinguishing between different types of discourse markers.
17 components, for instance, illocutionary adverbials (confidentially), attitudinal adverbials (surprisingly) and from essential interjections (uh oh)
According to Schiffrin (1987) and Fraser (1999), discourse markers (DMs) play a crucial role in establishing coherence between two parts of a text They highlight the relationship between textual components and indicate the boundaries of implicit actions.
Classification of Discourse Markers
Discourse markers (DMs) have garnered significant attention from researchers, leading to various classifications and conceptual frameworks Over time, DMs have been analyzed from multiple perspectives and through diverse applied systems, resulting in both conflicts and similarities among studies Fraser (1999 & 2009) identified five main categories of DMs: Temporal, Contrastive, Elaborative, Inferential, and Topic change markers Additionally, Fung (2011) and Kopple (1985) emphasize the importance of Interpersonal Markers in reflecting writers' evaluations and emotions in academic writing.
Taken together, six main types of DMs including Temporal, Contrastive, Elaborative, Inferential, Topic change and Interpersonal Markers were applied for data analysis
Table 2.1: The types of DMs in academic writing (Fraser, 1999 & 2009) and Fung (2011) & Kopple (1985)
No Types of DMs DMs used by the learners Examples
Firstly, secondly, thirdly, lastly, next, finally, subsequently, afterwards, before, after, first and foremost, to begin with
Prior to reaching a peak of
85 thousand people in 2018, the number of tourists visiting Vietnam decreased to 45 thousand in 2015
Despite various contrasting viewpoints, it is essential to recognize that, on the other hand, different perspectives can enrich our understanding Nevertheless, regardless of the differences, there are common grounds that unite us Conversely, while some may argue against a particular stance, others may embrace it wholeheartedly In spite of these disagreements, the dialogue remains crucial for progress Ultimately, by exploring these contrasts, we can foster a more inclusive conversation that benefits everyone involved.
Humans are seriously harming the environment However, they are not aware of their activities
In addition to providing examples, it is important to elaborate on concepts for clarity Furthermore, using phrases like "that is to say" or "in other words" can enhance understanding Similarly, emphasizing particular points can help convey the message more effectively Equally important is the use of varied expressions to maintain coherence and engagement throughout the content.
Students are passionate about outdoor activities To be more precise, swimming, riding bikes, flying kites or bird-watching are surveyed as their favorable choices
Therefore, hence, thus, as a result, as a consequence, in conclusion, in brief, for this reason, all things considered
More people migrate into big cities in search of job opportunities As a result, there has been an increasing demand for accommodation and urban services
Regarding, when it comes to, with regard to, turning to, with respect to
Regarding the economic value, tourism greatly contributes to the general prosperity of a nation
Indeed, in fact, it is clear that, it is obvious that, it is certain that, obviously, inevitably, without a doubt, undoubtedly, in principal, unfortunately, perhaps, of course
It is obvious that spending an excessive amount of time on the screens, children might suffer some health- related problems.
Functions of Discourse Markers
Research indicates that discourse markers (DMs) play a crucial role in academic writing Fraser (1999), a leading theorist, categorizes DMs into three main subclasses: Contrastive Markers, which highlight differences between sentences; Elaborative Markers, which indicate a similar relationship; and Inferential Markers, which suggest that the second sentence derives from the first Fraser also identifies specific DMs that clarify the reasoning behind the content of the preceding sentence, such as "because" and "for this reason." Additionally, Nattinger and Decarrico (1992) emphasize that the functions of DMs extend beyond linking text segments; they also organize subordinate and coordinate structures, enhancing the overall coherence of the writing.
The capacity of these Markers expands the ability to use the language in an adaptable manner and encourage with the progressing content (Tannen et al.,
In 2015, it was highlighted that understanding is influenced by the connections formed between different segments of information (Fraser, 1999) Additionally, Watts (1988) emphasizes the significance of understanding discourse markers (DMs) as a practical tool, although not as a standalone category.
27 authority or Morph-Syntactic classification, which includes things of phonetic that "separate one portion of the general talk regarding some dissimilar fragments"
The dual functions of discourse markers (DMs)—textual and interpersonal—play a crucial role in instruction and learning Their effective use enhances communication, promotes organized writing, and improves comprehension in both spoken and written texts, ultimately boosting students' skills in speaking, writing, listening, and reading (Swan, 2005; Wei, 2013) Furthermore, DMs significantly enhance academic and technical writing, leading to a clearer understanding of concepts and better coherence in written discourse (Swan, 2005; Wei, 2013).
The primary functions of discourse markers (DMs) are complex due to their multifunctionality Halliday (1994) identifies three metafunctions of DMs: the ideational, textual, and interpersonal functions The ideational function reflects speakers' perspectives and experiences, while the interpersonal function facilitates interaction between presenters and listeners The textual function is crucial for helping readers grasp the writer's ideas Many discourse experts, following Halliday's framework, focus particularly on the textual and interpersonal functions of DMs.
In her 1996 research, the author identifies textual and interpersonal functions as the primary roles of pragmatic markers, which are situated at the periphery of Halliday's (1994) ideational function, specifically within the propositional element Aijmer (2002) supports this view, emphasizing that discourse analysis should focus on these two critical functions of discourse markers (DMs) This perspective is further echoed by several notable discourse analysts, including Koople (1985), Crismore (1993), and Hyland.
2005) have attempted to characterize DMs‟ functions based on Halliday‟s studies
(1973 & 1994) They stated that metadiscourse items exhibit a textual function by composing coherence and act an interpersonal function by unveiling the writer‟s opinion to a statement To support the previous declaration, Castro
(2009) also professes DMs fulfill both textual and interpersonal functions despite being multifunctional
As has been noted, this study spotlights on the overshadowing functions of DMs including textual and interpersonal, which are profoundly justified as follows
The textual function of DMs
Adapting from the inventory of Briton (1996), Castro (2009) draws our attention to the textual functions of DMs The specific roles of DMs are highlighted as followed
Opening frame marker to originate discourse
Closing frame marker to conclude discourse
Fillers to add more information
Topic switchers to introduce another theme
Information indicators to announce old or new message
Sequence markers to spot successive reliance
Aijmer (2002) explores the classification of discourse markers (DMs), highlighting their broader impact beyond individual usage She asserts that specific markers serve essential functions within written texts, including marking transitions, introducing new topics, initiating justifications, and starting direct speech This differentiation underscores the critical roles that DMs play in the functional structure of writing.
Effective communication relies on signal markers to ensure smooth speech Qualifiers play a crucial role in indicating agreement or disagreement, addressing specific issues, and highlighting relationships or conflicts within conversations.
Textual metadiscourse markers are crucial for establishing cohesion and coherence in written texts, as highlighted by metadiscourse analysts like Kopple (1985) She categorizes these markers into four main types: text connectives, code glosses, validity markers, and narrators Text connectives help in sequencing and introducing new topics, while code glosses clarify the author's intentions for the readers Validity markers indicate the writer's commitment to the accuracy of an idea, and narrators inform readers about the sources of the presented evidence.
There has been some debate regarding the subclassifications of discourse markers (DMs) in relation to their textual functions However, the fundamental roles of DMs identified by researchers such as Briton (1996), Castro (2009), Ajimer (2002), and Kopple (1985) provide a crucial analytical framework for examining the macro-level textual functions of DMs in this study.
The interpersonal function of DMs
Numerous studies have highlighted the interpersonal function of discourse markers (DMs), demonstrating that these markers enhance communal interaction and guide thoughts, perspectives, and evaluations (Briton, 1996; Castro, 2009; Aijmer, 2002; Kopple, 1985; Hyland, 2005).
In 2009, it was highlighted that discourse markers (DMs) serve two key interpersonal functions: subjective and interpersonal From a subjective perspective, response markers and back-channel signals are utilized to facilitate effective communication by providing appropriate replies.
30 the anterior discourse From the interpersonal level, confirmation-seekers and face-savers influence collaboration or distribution, involving examining understanding, stating the distinction or requesting approval
Aijmer (2002) proposes that discourse particles serve as markers of uncertainty and are designed to engage listeners, thereby seeking their approval These particles, referred to as phatic discourse particles, illustrate the collaborative nature of conversation.
Face-saving, politeness and indirectness are three main traits of daily dialogue
Kopple (1985) identifies a key categorization of interpersonal functions, known as the interpersonal macro-function, which conveys the writer's manner This macro-function is further divided into sub-categories: illocution markers that enhance the precision of the writer's performance (e.g., to conclude, to summarize); attitude markers that reflect the author's feelings towards the content (e.g., unfortunately, intriguingly); and commentaries that guide readers towards responding to the text (e.g., you might want to take this action into consideration).
The most significant revisions have been indicated by Hyland and Tse
Metadiscourse is inherently interpersonal, fostering a connection between the reader's perspective and textual comprehension (2004) Hyland (2005) highlights the role of conjuncts and adverbials as textual metadiscourse that guide readers toward temporary or interactional meanings He categorizes interpersonal metadiscourse functions into two dimensions: the interactive and the interactional The interactive dimension includes five specific categories: transition markers (e.g., nonetheless, but, however), endophoric markers (e.g., mentioned above), frame markers (e.g., in conclusion, in brief), code glosses (e.g., to put it another way), and evidentials (e.g., according to) Conversely, the interactional dimension consists of five sub-sets, such as engagement markers (e.g., as can be seen from the chart) and boosters (e.g., it is evident that, as a matter of fact).
31 attitude markers (e.g unluckily, remarkably), hedges (e.g possibly, probably) and self-mentions (e.g we, they, I)
This study is based on extensive research and incorporates the sub-categories of discourse markers (DMs) identified by various scholars, including Briton (1996), Castro (2009), Ajimer (2002), and Kopple (1985) Additionally, the interpersonal functions of DMs were adapted from Hyland (2005) to better align with the objectives of this research, particularly for spoken discourse The summarized functions of DMs, as presented in the accompanying table, are crucial for the analysis.
Table 2.2: Functions of DMs in academic writing adapted from the scholars (Briton, 1996; Castro, 2009; Ajimer, 2002; Kopple, 1985 & Hyland, 2005)
Transitions To show semantic relations in the text
Also, and Although, however, on the other hand Therefore, as a result
To mention discourse acts or text procedures
To begin with, firstly, secondly
Code glosses To facilitate readers‟ understanding
In other words, to be more precise, such as, for example
Evidentials To denote resource of message from other pieces
When it comes to , regarding, according to
Boosters To stress writer‟s firmness in their essays
Indeed, in fact, it is clear that, undoubtedly, without a doubt
Hedges To state writer‟s reluctance to a certain idea
It might be suggested that, perhaps
Nature of writing
Writing is a cognitive process that reflects a writer's competence through the use of attributes like relative clauses, discourse markers (DMs), and passive constructions (Hylland, 2015) DMs play a crucial role in essay writing by conveying the writer's intentions and enhancing linguistic communication According to River (1981), writing involves expressing original thoughts in new words Brown (2001) emphasizes that writing is an intellectual activity requiring students to outline their ideas before articulating them This complexity underscores the importance of writing skills, which not only help students use language effectively in essays but also foster logical thinking (Harmer, 2004).
2.5.2 The importance of essay writing
Writing serves as a crucial form of communication in various formats, including texting, emailing, and social media, which have become increasingly prevalent in recent decades According to Walsh (2010), it is essential in both the workplace and higher education In educational settings, writing essays is an effective method for assessing a learner's understanding The diverse range of essay types allows teachers to evaluate students' knowledge through logical expression of ideas By analyzing, arguing, and exemplifying their thoughts, learners can effectively communicate with professors, employers, and peers Additionally, by utilizing a rich vocabulary and complex grammatical structures, students can produce high-quality writing This process not only enhances their creativity but also sharpens their logical thinking, fostering the development of skilled and innovative writers.
Writing is a vital component of the school curriculum, serving as an essential tool for teaching problem-solving skills (McGuire, Lay, & Peters, 2009) Despite its laborious nature, writing significantly enhances students' intellectual development and offers numerous benefits (Chapell, 2011) It enables writers to articulate their viewpoints, enhances critical thinking, nurtures communication skills, and prepares them for university and future careers For higher education students, the ability to conduct research and produce quality papers is crucial, making writing indispensable for success in their chosen professions.
Discourse Markers in writing
The use of Direct Messages (DMs) is undeniably beneficial for tracking a learner's progress and enhancing a teacher's educational career Additionally, other fields can also gain advantages from DMs When utilized effectively, DMs can significantly improve readers' understanding of concepts and greatly enhance their specialized writing skills (Wei, 2013).
Discourse markers (DMs) are essential tools that enable speakers and writers to emphasize their points by creating pauses, which also guide listeners in understanding the organization of the content They play a crucial role in structuring introductions and conclusions, particularly in academic works (Wei, 2013) By providing necessary breaks, DMs allow audiences to process linguistic cues effectively, reducing the risk of communication breakdowns (Brinton, 2010) Furthermore, DMs significantly contribute to semantic cohesion, enhancing the clarity and meaning of discourse (Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Schiffrin, 1987).
Discourse Markers in IELTS writing
With respect to writing part 2 in IELTS exam, writing competence is assessed based on four criteria of writing band descriptors: task achievement, vocabulary
34 supply, the complexity of grammatical use and coherence as well as cohesion (taken from www.ieltsasia.org)
Candidates are required to write a 250-word essay within 40 minutes, expressing their viewpoints on common phenomena, evaluating the pros and cons of an issue, or identifying challenges and solutions Each essay is scored on a scale of one to nine across various categories Task achievement is assessed based on how well candidates address the prompt and support their ideas with relevant examples Language proficiency is evaluated through the use of a diverse vocabulary that is pertinent to the topic Additionally, grammatical range and accuracy are crucial, as simple sentence structures can negatively impact the overall score Finally, coherence and cohesion are essential, reflecting how effectively candidates connect ideas, sentences, and paragraphs, with the use of discourse markers playing a significant role in the final evaluation.
A contestant's proficiency is evaluated based on grammatical accuracy and the effective use of discourse markers (DMs) For instance, achieving a band 6 in writing is possible if candidates use DMs correctly, even with minor mistakes To attain higher scores, it is essential to employ DMs more logically and skillfully.
The perception of the use of DMs in academic writing
Understanding discourse markers (DMs) is crucial for learners as it significantly enhances their writing skills While mastery of vocabulary and grammar is essential for producing accurate sentences, the effective use of DMs enables students to create coherent and cohesive essays (Louwerse & Mitchell, 2013) Discourse reflects spontaneous written language, showcasing the writer's attitude, connecting various opinions, and drawing conclusions.
Discourse markers (DMs) play a crucial role in showcasing learners' pragmatic awareness during language use, as well as reflecting their intentions, emotions, and biases (Rahimi, 2011; Liu, 2017).
Discourse markers (DMs) play a crucial role in everyday language use, significantly impacting coherence and cohesion in writing Researchers have highlighted their importance in pragmatic and pedagogical studies, emphasizing that a well-composed text relies heavily on the effective application of DMs (Fraser, 1990; Schourup, 1999; Rahimi, 2011) Despite recognizing the significance of DMs, many postgraduate students in Iranian universities struggle to use them effectively due to limited knowledge and exposure (Kalajahi & Abdullah, 2012) Similarly, Saudi EFL learners often exhibit a restricted range of DMs, leading to incoherent writing, with little improvement observed as they progress in their studies (Daif-Allah & Albasher, 2013) EFL learners in Arabian schools also face challenges in utilizing DMs, underscoring the need for dedicated instruction on this topic (Modhish, 2012) Comparisons between native and non-native speakers reveal that EFL learners frequently lack the proper use of DMs, highlighting an urgent need for effective teaching strategies focused on pragmatic markers (Trillo, 2002) Consequently, there is a growing body of research aimed at enhancing teachers' awareness and application of DMs in writing instruction.
The significance of discourse markers (DMs) in enhancing students' writing skills is paramount, emphasizing key factors such as their pragmatic, pedagogic, and indispensable value It is crucial to align DMs with native speaker norms and prioritize their teaching to facilitate accessible learning experiences (Albester, Frid & Raja, 2017).
This study examines how EFL students perceive the use of discourse markers (DMs) in their essays, focusing on their pragmatic, indispensable, and learning value to align with the research objectives.
Understanding the functions of discourse markers (DMs) is crucial for language users, as it reflects their attitudes in communication Students must recognize the importance of DMs to use them effectively and enhance their role in language Prioritizing the learning of DMs is essential for learners to make informed decisions that align with their needs (Cheng, 2013) Consequently, students' perceptions of DMs were assessed from three key perspectives, which are detailed below.
Pragmatics, as defined by Swan (2007), plays a crucial role in understanding meaning within its contextual framework Without pragmatics, a piece of writing or speech lacks communicative effectiveness, as it fails to convey both literal and non-literal meanings When writers are mindful of how they express their thoughts and feelings through language, they can significantly enhance the pragmatic value of their chosen words.
(2002) defines that the level of naturalness of a speech or a text is shaped by the appreciation of pragmatic value of DMs
Discourse markers (DMs) play an indispensable role in linguistic analysis, as highlighted by Aijmer (2002) Understanding the essential function of DMs in language units is crucial for students, as it enhances their writing skills and overall communication effectiveness.
In academic writing, the effective use of discourse markers (DMs) is crucial for clarity and comprehension Trillo (2002) highlights that readers may struggle to grasp the writer's ideas if DMs are not appropriately applied This study critically examines the essential role of DMs in enhancing understanding within written compositions.
Learning development is a complex process that compels individuals to enhance themselves by balancing their incentives and restraints (Schwartz, 1992) The perception of learning plays a crucial role in shaping a learner's improvement According to Ozar (1993), both external factors—such as family, friends, and the learning environment—and internal factors like attitude, goals, perception, and motivation significantly impact learners Notably, mature learners tend to exhibit greater enthusiasm for learning when their internal motivations outweigh external influences.
The appropriateness of the use of DMs in academic writing
According to Gerard (2020), the effective use of discourse markers (DMs) is crucial for the coherence and cohesion of written texts, as they help create a comprehensible essay Misuse, overuse, underuse, and grammatical errors related to DMs can obscure the opinions of language users, as noted by several researchers (Cho, 1998; Feng, 2010; Martinez, 2004; Mumbi & Simwinga, 2018) A significant issue in EFL essays is the lack of clarity, which often results in incoherence (Elbow, 1988) Non-native speakers frequently translate directly from their mother tongue to English, leading to a limited understanding of DMs, resulting in common pitfalls such as overuse, misuse, and underuse (Aidinlou & Mehr, 2012; Patriana, 2012) Mumbi and Simwinga (2018) found that 12th graders in Kitwe often receive low writing scores due to insufficient knowledge of DMs, with 44 out of 107 students struggling to effectively incorporate them into their compositions.
38 ubiquitous improper use of DMs
Indonesian students recognize the importance of using discourse markers (DMs) to enhance the coherence of their essays, as noted by Patriana, Rachmajanti, and Mukminatien (2016) However, they encounter several challenges, including the overuse of DMs, non-equivalent exchanges, mistranslations, reliance on surface logic, and misinterpretations of relationships within their writing.
Chen (2011) argues that students often use various discourse markers (DMs) without recognizing their differences, such as substituting "nonetheless" for "by contrast." Supporting this view, Kao and Chen (2011) assert that the appropriateness of DMs is determined by how students use them in context Correct usage of DMs indicates effectiveness in linking ideas, while also revealing six common misapplication patterns (refer to Table 2.3).
Table 2.3: Appropriateness of DMs (Kao & Chen, 2011)
1 Wrong relation The nonsuccess in using DMs to convey a mutual relationship between two segments in a text
2 Distraction The redundant application of DMs
3 Overuse The overemployment of DMs
The application of DMs expressing the similar textual correlation in an interchangeable way when they are not able to
The shortage of enhancing the function of DMs
6 Surface logicality The presence of DMs, which is used to connect sentences, does not exist
To enhance the writing skills of EFL learners, an analysis was conducted on the types and functions of discourse markers (DMs) in their essays This examination identified the incorrect usage of DMs, following the criteria established by Kao and Chen (2011).
Previous studies
Writing has garnered significant attention from researchers over the past few decades, yet it remains one of the least favored subjects among learners due to the diverse skills it requires, developed over time A major challenge for many students is the effective use of discourse markers (DMs), leading to numerous studies focused on this area Kalajahi (2012) investigated the perceptions of five Iranian postgraduate students regarding DMs, comparing their interview responses with their writing samples The qualitative study revealed that while the participants recognized the importance of DMs in their writing, they lacked adequate knowledge for their proper selection and use.
Faghih and Mousaee (2015) conducted a comparative study on the use of discourse markers (DMs) in INTERPOL communications between non-native Iranian and native English police officers, analyzing a corpus of sixty messages Their findings revealed similarities in the use of contrastive, elaborative, and temporal DMs, but a significant difference in the application of inferential DMs Similarly, Mumbi, Clara, and John (2018) identified challenges faced by twelfth graders in Zambia regarding DMs in composition writing, attributing these issues to a lack of understanding Their research involved analyzing 300 written scripts from 150 students, utilizing a descriptive research design focused on the structured nature of written discourse.
Modhish (2012) examined the use of discourse markers (DMs) in the composition writings of Yemeni EFL learners, analyzing 50 essays based on Fraser's (1999) taxonomy The study found that elaborative DMs were the most frequently used, followed by inferential, contrastive, causative, and topic-relating markers Notably, there was no strong positive correlation between the total number of DMs used and writing quality, although a positive correlation was observed between topic-relating markers and writing quality Similarly, Rahimi (2011) studied DMs in Iranian EFL learners' argumentative and expository writings, revealing that elaborative markers, particularly "and," were the most common connectors in both essay types Contrastive and inferential markers followed, while reason, exemplifier, and conclusive markers were the least used Overall, the mean use of DMs was significantly higher in argumentative essays compared to expository essays.
A study by Dumlao and Wilang (2019) explored the use of discourse markers (DMs) among L1 and L2 English users in non-native contexts, analyzing 24 academic essays submitted by students Utilizing Fraser's (2009) taxonomy, the research identified significant differences in DM usage, with L1 users predominantly employing elaborative markers, while L2 users frequently overused certain types, such as elaborative and inferential markers This overuse led to incoherent texts among L2 writers Additionally, Jalilifar's study (2008) focused on DMs in descriptive compositions by 90 Iranian students, further highlighting the complexities of DM usage in academic writing.
A study involving 41 students from two universities examined their use of discourse markers (DMs) in descriptive compositions written weekly over eight weeks, resulting in the collection of 598 compositions Analyzing these works qualitatively and quantitatively, the findings revealed that students utilized DMs with varying frequencies, with elaborative markers being the most common, followed by inferential, contrastive, causative, and topic-relating markers A direct and positive correlation was found between the quality of the compositions and the effective use of DMs, with significant differences noted in DM usage and composition quality among different groups Notably, graduate students employed more DMs, contributing to the creation of more cohesive texts.
A study by Ali and Mahadin (2016) explored the use of discourse markers (DMs) in written discourse among Jordanian EFL learners, revealing that proficiency levels significantly affect DM usage in expository essays Their comparative analysis found that both advanced and intermediate learners utilized similar rates of DMs Additionally, Zhao (2014) examined the textual function of DMs through relevance theory, demonstrating that the use of DMs in announcement translation influences comprehension and provides listeners with guidance for achieving optimal relevance.
In light of lack of understanding of DMS, there is a multiplicity of errors in students‟ text production such as overuse, wrong relation or semantic incompletion
A study involving 25 diploma-level students from a Landscape Architecture program revealed that their low English proficiency led to the overuse and misuse of discourse markers (DMs) in writing (Manan, Ashikin & Raslee, 2017) Similarly, Alghamdi (2014) conducted a quantitative and qualitative analysis on the use of DMs in personal narrative and argumentative papers written by 30 undergraduate students, comprising 15 native speakers and 15 nonnative speakers This research also examined the impact of the frequency and incorrect use of DMs on writing quality.
A study on the quality of ESL writings revealed no significant difference in the use of discourse markers (DMs) between native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) Both groups favored elaborative, contrastive, and reason markers, establishing a hierarchy of usage NNS writings exhibited an overuse of DMs at the beginning of sentences and redundant use of semantically similar markers within single sentences, indicating that incorrect and frequent use of DMs significantly affects writing quality Research by Kalami and Noori (2015) highlighted that teaching DMs enhances students' awareness and writing skills Alghamdi (2014) noted that correct DM usage tends to occur at the sentence's start, while Haris and Yunus (2014) found that many students misused or overused DMs, detracting from text coherence However, some students demonstrated the ability to use advanced DMs effectively The authors recommended that instruction on DMs should precede writing assignments to improve overall writing proficiency.
In a 2018 study, researchers investigated the challenges faced by 150 Grade Twelve ESL learners in Kitwe, Zambia, regarding the use of discourse markers (DMs) in composition writing during the 2014 academic year Data were gathered from 300 written pieces produced by these students, employing a descriptive research design with a focus on text analysis The study revealed that participants encountered seven specific errors in their use of DMs: wrong relation (WR), non-equivalent exchange (NEE), semantic incompletion (SI), distraction (D), surface logicality (SL), overuse (O), and the use of speech-related (SR) DMs.
In the context of Vietnam, there have been some researchers in Vietnam who studied about the useful functions of devices in writing and DMs in conversations
Bui Thuy Linh (2011) explored the use of discourse markers (DMs) in current English textbooks, finding that they enhance the appropriateness and effectiveness of DMs among Vietnamese high school students, thereby reducing cross-cultural misunderstandings Vo Thi Nhung (2018) studied DMs in English and Vietnamese short stories, concluding that these markers aid readers and listeners in following the narrative Ha Thi Thanh Thuy (2011) conducted a discourse analysis of English college admission essays, highlighting the importance of using diverse markers to engage readers Nguyen Thi Thu Thuy (2018) performed a corpus-based analysis comparing the use of meta-discourse devices in academic articles by Vietnamese and native English writers, revealing a lower frequency of hedges among the former due to varied ethnic backgrounds Additionally, Ho Vu Le (2011) found that Vietnamese learners heavily relied on textual connections in argumentative writing compared to texts authored by native professionals.
Despite the absence of research on students' perceptions and the use of discourse markers (DMs) in academic writing, particularly within IELTS preparatory courses in Vietnam, this presents a significant literary gap Consequently, the focus of this study is on the perceptions and utilization of DMs by English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners in these preparatory classes.
Conceptual framework
After explaining the premises of DMs, a conceptual framework with specific categories that needed to be examined was the backbone of this study The optimum
44 methods to reconnoiter how students apprehend and implement DMs in their compositions could be a survey about their perceptions and document analysis of their essays
The perception of discourse markers (DMs) in speaking skills was initially explored by Fung (2011) and later adapted by Albester, Farid, and Raja (2017) to assess their impact on writing skills Building on these surveys, the researcher examined EFL students' perceptions of DMs in essays, focusing on their pragmatic, indispensable, and learning value The study identified six primary types of DMs present in learners' essays: Temporal, Contrastive, Elaborative, Inferential, Topic Change Markers, and Interpersonal Markers, as outlined by Fraser.
The study assessed the use of discourse markers (DMs) in academic writing, referencing key scholars such as Briton (1996), Castro (2009), Ajimer (2002), Kopple (1985), and Hyland (2005) The functions of these DMs were evaluated and coded, as detailed in Table 2.2 Additionally, six misapplication patterns identified by Kao & Chen (2011) were utilized for this research, as outlined in Table 2.3.
Figure 2.1 Conceptual framework of the perception and use of English Discourse Markers in essays of EFL learners in IELTS preparation course
DISCOURSE MARKERS IN ACADEMIC WRITING
THE USE OF DMS IN ACADEMIC WRITING
The appropriateness of the use of DMs
+ Transitions + Frame markers + Code glosses + Evidentials
Summary
This chapter offers comprehensive insights into Discourse, Discourse Analysis, and Discourse Markers (DMs), detailing their definitions, characteristics, approaches, classifications, and functions to establish a theoretical foundation for the study The primary objectives of this research are to investigate learners' awareness and application of DMs in academic writing It emphasizes the nature and significance of essay writing, particularly in the context of IELTS writing Additionally, the chapter addresses perceptions and the appropriateness of DMs in academic contexts, providing evidence for the theoretical framework It concludes with a review of previous studies and the conceptual framework guiding this research.