NGHIÊN CỨU MỐI QUAN HỆ GIỮA SỬ DỤNG DẤU HIỆU DIỄN NGÔN VÀ KĨ NĂNG VIẾT VĂN LUẬN CỦA SINH VIÊN TIẾNG ANH THƯƠNG MẠI TRƯƠNG ĐẠI HỌC KINH TẾ an investigation into correlation between discourse markers usage frequency and argumentative writing skills by stud

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING SKILLS BY STUDENTS AT BUSINESS ENGLISH DEPART

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING SKILLS BY STUDENTS AT

BUSINESS ENGLISH DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY

NGHIÊN CỨU MỐI QUAN HỆ GIỮA SỬ DỤNG DẤU HIỆU DIỄN NGÔN VÀ KĨ NĂNG VIẾT VĂN LUẬN CỦA SINH VIÊN TIẾNG ANH THƯƠNG MẠI TRƯƠNG ĐẠI HỌC KINH TẾ

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING SKILLS BY STUDENTS AT

BUSINESS ENGLISH DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY

NGHIÊN CỨU MỐI QUAN HỆ GIỮA SỬ DỤNG DẤU HIỆU DIỄN NGÔN VÀ KĨ NĂNG VIẾT VĂN LUẬN CỦA SINH VIÊN TIẾNG ANH THƯƠNG MẠI TRƯƠNG ĐẠI HỌC KINH TẾ

QUỐC DÂN

MA Minor Thesis Field: English Linguistics

Code: 602215

Supervisor: PGS.TS Võ Đại Quang

Hanoi - 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION……….……… i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……….…… ….ii

ABSTRACT……….… … iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS……… iv

LIST OF TABLES……… vi

PART A INTRODUCTION 1 Rationale ……… ……… 1

2 Scope of the study ………2

3 Aims and objectives of the study ……….………2

4 Research questions………3

5 Design of the study………3

PART B DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I LITERATURE REVIEW 1 English study in Vietnam 1.1 English study in Vietnam and National Economics University…4 1.2 Issues in writing academic arguments……… 5

2 Studies related to the topic of the study……….7

3 Definition and background information of terms 3.1 Definition of academic writing and argumentative essay … 11

3.2 Discourse markers……….……… 12

3.2.1 Definition of discourse markers ……….………… 12

3.2.2 Properties of discourse markers………16

3.2.2.1 Phonological properties ……… 17

3.2.2.2 Morphological properties ………17

3.2.2.3 Syntactic properties and classification ………17

3.2.2.4 Semantic properties and classification ………… 19

3.2.3 Types of discourse markers ……….19

3.3 Role of discourse markers in writing……… 20

CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY 1 Background of the site for data collection………….….………21

2 Data gathering technique………21

3 Participants……….………22

4 Research instruments ……….22

4 Research procedure ……….…… 23

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 1 Findings ……….… 25

1.1 Frequency of discourse markers ……….… 25

1.2 Frequency of type of discourse markers ……….… 31

1.3 Correlation between the use of discourse markers and quality of argumentative writing essays……….…36

2 Discussions……….………38

PART C CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 1 Recapitulation ……… 43

2 Concluding remarks ….……… … 43

2.1 Concluding remark on objective 1 ……… 43

2.2 Concluding remark on objective 2 ……… 44

3 Implication……….44

4 Recommendation for further research……… …….45

REFERENCES………46 APPENDIX………I

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Results of students‟ writing ……… 26

Table 2: Ratio of number of writing essays of three groups……….… 27

Table 3: Distribution of discourse markers in all essays……….…….…27

Table 4: Frequency of use of discourse markers in group 1 essays………… 28

Table 5: Frequency of use of discourse markers in group 2 essays……….… 28

Table 6: Frequency of use of discourse markers in group 3 essays……….……30

Table 7: Frequency and percentage of types of discourse markers in group 1 essays ……… 32

Table 8: Frequency and percentage of types of discourse markers in group 2 essays ……… 33

Table 9: Frequency and percentage of types of discourse markers in group 3 essays ……… 34

Table 10: Frequency of four types of discourse markers in three groups….… 36

Table 11: Percentage of four types of discourse markers in three groups….…….36

Within the past fifteen years or so, there has been an increasing interest in the theoretical status of discourse markers in spoken language and written language To date, there have been a few studies undertaken to explore the discourse markers usage in writing in general There has not yet been a study done that investigated fully the correlation between discourse markers usage and quality of argumentative writing essays The current study is hereby designed to examine the relationship between the frequency usage of discourse markers and argumentative writing skills

by students at Business English Department, National Economics University

2 Scope of the study

The discourse marker is a vast topic in English teaching and learning in which various aspect and functions of it have been under research It would ambitious to cover so many aspects in this study Therefore, the area investigated of the study is the correlation between frequency usage of discourse markers and argumentative writing kills and subjects of the study are 38 second-year students at Business English Department, National Economics University

3 Aims and objectives of the study

3.1 Aims of the study

The study aims at helping students recognize the significance of discourse markers

in writing argumentative essay and then applying them in their writing by providing them knowledge on types of discourse markers, and functions of each type

3.2 Objectives of the study

By helping students recognize the importance of discourse markers, the study will firstly (1) examine the frequency of use of discourse markers in argumentative essays written by 38 second year students at Business English Department, Faculty

of Foreign Languages, National Economics University More specifically, it will seek the average percentage of discourse markers and their types in argumentative essays The study, then, (2) discloses the relationship between the frequency of discourse markers and students‟ writing quality

5 Design of the study

The thesis is divided into three main parts including Introduction, Development and Conclusion In part A, readers will be informed of the real situation in teaching and learning academic writing and the urgent need leading to the study being conducted Also, the writer will mention the aims and objectives of the study In the second part, Development, there are three chapters: Literature review supplies background information of terms, and summary of previous researches; Methodology describes carefully the participants, the research instruments and the research procedure; Findings and Discussions reveals the results of the study and implications for the teaching of argumentative essay writing Conclusion is the final part wrapping up the thesis

PART B DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER I LITERATURE REVIEW

1 English study in Vietnam and National Economics University and issues in writing academic argument

1.1 English study in Vietnam and National Economics University

Vietnamese government regard English an indispensable tool for doing business, educating students and fostering relations with other countries Therefore, a command of English is vital and English is a required subject from grade sixth and

it is going to be a compulsory subject at primary school in most private and state schools There are some issues; however, which occur to prevent students from achieving English proficiency Primary students from grade one to five mainly focus on sets of simple vocabulary and grammar is the first hinder It is common knowledge that one teacher may be responsible for teaching many subjects, which means the teacher of English might not be well-trained in the subject (this is the reason why Ministry of Education has implemented a teacher‟s level upgrading programme for primary teachers) In addition, a large class of approximately 40 students is teacher‟s teaching responsibility, which leads to the lack of time for teacher to provide feedback for every single student

The next reason is that Vietnamese students study English as a foreign language Although English is viewed important for the reasons above, students typically study other subjects in their national language The last reasons and perhaps the most significant reason is that a typical English lesson is Vietnam focuses on grammar, vocabulary and reading, and tests are often in the form of multiple choice questions rather than requiring extended writing Students, therefore, have less exposure to composing texts

With the background setting as mentioned above, it is natural that numerous Vietnamese students find it difficult to write essays What make academic writing in English specifically difficult for Vietnamese students is that what they pursue their studying at university, their language demands are twofold they need to improve their English communicative skills both in speaking and writing While they are trying to upgrade their English proficiency, another trouble appears when they have

to distinguish between formal and informal language In this sense, students need to move from the more general English taught from primary to high schools to the much more specialized, academic writing of university level

Furthermore, it is worth noting that not only are students inexperienced in composing extended texts in English, they are also not introduced to the genre of argumentative essays While English argumentative essay writing is an important feature of academic leaning

Thus, it is not surprising that composing argumentative essays successfully is a serious challenge for students at National Economics University as well as other EFL students with similar educational backgrounds

1.2 Issues in writing academic arguments

As mentioned above, there are several challenges facing students when studying English as a Foreign Language

Adult learners learn English for different purposes, varying from study purposes to occupational purposes To meet specific needs and prepare learners to communicate effectively in their study and work situation, the field of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) is divided into two main areas: English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and English for Occupational Purposes (EOP), with the focus on meeting the

specific demands of the target domain (Dudley-Evans & John 1998) The main concern in EAP is assisting learners‟ study or research in English

According to Canale and Swain (1980), writers at least need grammatical competence (knowledge of grammar, vocabulary, and semantics), discourse competence (knowledge of genres and the rhetorical patterns that create them), sociolinguistic competence (the ability to use language appropriately in different contexts) and strategic competence (the ability to use a variety of communicative strategies) With respect to second language (L2) writers, Silva (1993) reviewed numerous studies comparing research into first and second language writing, and concluded that “L2 writing is strategically, rhetorically and linguistically different

in important ways from L1 writing” The differences that were noted include the differences in the following writing and learning issues:

- Linguistic proficiencies and intuitions about language;

- Learning experience and classroom expectations;

- Sense of audience and writer;

- Preferences for ways of organizing texts;

- Writing process; and

- Understanding of text uses and the social value of different text types

Over the past four decades, language learners have become increasingly aware the importance of an appropriate grammatical competence and sociolinguistic competence in communication These competences play a significant role in producing a successful composition To ensure communication success, it is vital to achieve sociolinguistic competence (the ability to use language appropriately and naturally in different contexts) Because of the increase in interest in the formal teaching of writing and language learners‟ needs to write properly in the target language, it is required that students are supplied adequate sociolinguistic competence to employ and function word choice in the most natural way

2 Works related to the topic of the study

Research on discourse markers can be classified into three main categories The first group of studies has examined the frequency of discourse markers used in the students‟ writing Some of these studies have investigated the use of discourse markers in one language (L1 or L2) and some others have compared the frequency

of the use of discourse markers between L1 and L2 For instance, Connor (1984) compared six argumentative essays written by English native and ESL students, following Halliday and Hasan‟s (1976) framework No significant difference was found between native and ESL students in the frequency of the use of DMs

Field and Yip (1992) compared the writings of 67 Hong Kong students with 29 Australian students on an argumentative topic They found that non-native students

of English used more conjunctions than Australian students did, and they usually put all conjunctions at the beginning of the sentences

In a similar study, comparing the frequency of discourse markers used by native and non-native speakers of English, Karasi (1994) analyzed 135 expository essays by Singaporean secondary students They found no difference between native and ESL students in the frequency of the use of cohesive ties

Intraprawat and Steffensen (1995) analyzed the discourse markers used in persuasive essays by ESL university students They found that differences between essays that received good ratings and essays that received poor ratings were found

in the number of words, T-units, and density of discourse markers That is, the former was characterized by a high density of these features

Steffensen and Cheng (1996) analyzed argumentative texts written by students who worked on the propositional content of their essays and who were taught using a

process approach and those who concentrated on the pragmatic functions of discourse markers by enjoying direct teaching of discourse markers The results showed that students receiving direct instruction on DMs used them more effectively and also became more sensitive to their readers‟ needs, thereby making global changes that improved their papers

Jalilifar (2008), following Fraser's (1999) taxonomy of discourse markers, investigated discourse markers in descriptive compositions of 90 junior and senior

Iranian EFL students Findings showed that elaborative markers were the most

frequently used, followed by inferential, contrastive, causative, and topic relating markers A direct and positive relationship was also found between the quality of the compositions and the number of DMs used

The second group of studies has investigated the nature of discourse markers used

in students‟ writing Liu and Braine (2005), using Haliday and Hassan‟s taxonomy

of cohesive devices, investigated the use of cohesive devices in 50 argumentative compositions written by Chinese undergraduate non-English majors They also examined the relationship between the number of cohesive devices used and the quality of writing Among the sub-categories of conjunction devices, additive devices accounted for the largest percentage of use, followed by causal, temporal, and adversative devices The cohesive items with the highest frequency were „and‟,

„also‟ and „or‟ Among adversative devices, „but‟ was used with the highest frequency, while „on the contrary‟, and „instead‟ occurred very little in their writings Other items such as „as a result‟, and „thus‟ were rarely used

Hu et al (1982), using frequency counts, analyzed the use of cohesive ties by 12 Chinese university students in comparison with 12 Australian university students The framework used was Halliday‟s functional grammar They found that Chinese

students used more conjunctions and Australian students used more lexical cohesion

Using an 8 million-word corpus of fiction, news, and academic spoken and written English, Bell (2010) examined the contrastive discourse markers of „nevertheless‟,

„still‟ and „yet‟ The results showed that these markers constituted a cline of scope with „nevertheless‟ having the most limited scope and „yet‟ having the largest scope Variability of scope refers to “the extent to which a marker instructs the hearer/analyst to search the previous discourse or even go beyond the discourse to search their encyclopedic knowledge for a potential effect” (Bell, 2010, p 1925)

Hays (1992), investigating the use of different types of discourse markers by Japanese learners of English in their first, second, or third year of study, found that while discourse markers „but‟, „and‟, and „so‟ were used frequently, very few learners used „well‟ and „you know‟ Hays speculates that there is a developmental order for the acquisition of DMs That is, the DMs which are on the ideational plane are taught and used first while those that are more pragmatic appear later in the subjects‟ speech This idea is supported by Trillo‟s (2002) corpus-based study comparing discourse markers usage between native speakers and learners of English Trillo showed that learners of English used the discourse markers „well‟ and „you know‟ (among others) much less frequently than native speakers and that when learners used these lexical items, they were much more likely to be in their ideational, non-pragmatic usages

On the other hand, a study by Muller (2004) suggested different patterns of discourse markers usage for German learners of English This study was based on the retellings and discussion of a short film by American native English speakers and German learners of English She found overuse of the functions of some markers like „well‟ by German learners of English She suggested that this „over-

use‟ is a result of the way that the discourse markers „well‟ is presented in textbooks that these German students of English had used

Results of the above studies, in general, suggest that L2 learners underutilize discourse markers (compared with native speaker use) especially for their pragmatic functions While the majority of these studies have compared discourse markers in L1 and L2, very few have examined the use of these discourse markers used in L2 only and in argumentative essays In addition, the relationship between the use of DMs and writing quality is an issue that has not been attended to adequately and needs to be investigated particularly in an EFL context

In an attempt to address the above-mentioned issues, the present study aims at identifying the use of discourse markers in academic argumentative university students at Business English Department, National Economics University The study, moreover, intends to analyze the effect of using DMs on the quality of writing The results of this research will provide readers with insights into the general pattern of discourse markers use in university EFL learners‟ academic writing This would help readers and lecturers who teach Writing identify students‟ problems in using discourse markers, e.g overuse or underuse of certain categories

of discourse markers, and, thereby, modify writing teaching procedures and incorporate a more precise plan for teaching the appropriate use of discourse markers

3 Definition and background information of terms

3.1 Academic writing and argumentative essay

Graduate students face a variety of writing tasks as they work toward their chosen degrees Naturally, these tasks will vary from one degree program to another They are, however, similar in two respects First, the tasks become progressively more complex and demanding the farther you go in the program Second (with few exceptions), they need to be written academically Then, "academic writing " is one

of those terms that is often invoked, usually solemnly, as if everyone agreed on its meaning, and so is used imprecisely yet almost always for what the user regards as

a precise purpose; e.g., commonly by teachers in explaining what they want from students

According to Thaiss, Chris, and Terry Zawacki in their book Engaged Writers, Dynamic Disciplines: Research on the Academic Writing Life, academic writing is

defined:

… as any writing that fulfills a purpose of education in a college or university For most teachers, the term implies students writing in response to an academic assignment, or professional writing that trained "academics"—teachers and researchers—do for publications read and conferences attended by other academics

Argumentative essay is one of the most difficult essays that students learn at university In this kind of essay, students not only give information but also present

an argument with the supporting ideas and opposing ideas of an argumentative issue They also should clearly take their stand and write as if they are trying to persuade an opposing audience to adopt new beliefs or behavior The primary

objective is to persuade people to change beliefs that many of them do not want to change

3.2 Discourse markers

3.2.1 Definition of discourse markers

Discourse markers have been largely studies by researchers and they are still focusing their interest Nevertheless, the term “discourse marker has” aroused numerous discussions There is no consensus among researchers in comprehending what term discourse markers implies or refers to On the other hand, researchers may happen to agree on the underlying concept of discourse markers, but they use different names to refer to that very same concept Discourse markers have been frequently referred to as DISCOURSE MARKERS (Schiffrin 1987; Fraser 1990; 1996; 1999), DISCOURSE CONNECTIVES (Blakemore 1987; 1992; 2002), DISCOURSE OPERATORS (Redeker 1991), and CUE PHRASES (Knott 2000; Knott and Sanders 1997; Sanders and Noordman 2000) Other less frequent terms include discourse particles, discourse signaling devices, indicating devices, pragmatic connectives, pragmatic expressions, pragmatic particles and sentence connectives

Regarding the theoretical status of discourse markers, I would like to focus on discourse markers definition, their meanings and their functions To do this, the writer will review two outstanding research efforts that have been of huge impact in the field of discourse analysis The first approach is the work undergone by Schiffrin (1987), who studied elements, which mark “sequentially-dependent units

of discourse” The second perspective is the one defined by Fraser (1999), who approached discourse markers from a grammatical-pragmatic perspective

In her book Discourse Markers, Schiffrin was concerned with the ways in which

DM function to “add to discourse coherence” (1987:326) Schiffrin maintains that

coherence is constructed through relations between adjacent units in discourse (1987:24) She basically sees DM as serving an integrative function in discourse and therefore, contributing to discourse coherence She also points out the different nature of DMs, while some DMs relate only the semantic reality (the facts) of the

two clauses, others, including so, may relate clauses on a logical level and/or speech

act level

In Schiffrin‟s (1987) view, DMs have semantic and pragmatic meaning This idea fifers from Chaudron and Richard‟s (1986) definition of DM, who argue that Dms simply indicate problems of on-line discourse production, that is, they act as filled pauses in order to give the speaker time to organize his or her thoughts, and to give the listener time to process the spoken signal However, Chaudron and Richard‟s (1986) do not attribute DMs signposting relations between parts of the discourse

Schiffrin was aware of the limitations of her research since she analyses only eleven expressions in the first instance, namely: and, because, but, I mean, Now, Oh, so, then, Well, and Y’know, as they occur in unstructured interview conversations She clarifies that “except for Oh and Well … all the markers I have described have

meaning”, which she calls “core meaning” (1987:314) Later, she suggests other categories to be considered as DMs and that were not taken into consideration in her

study in a first stage These are perception verbs such as see, look and listen, deictics such as here and there, interjections such as gosh and boy, meta-talk such

as what I mean is and quantifier phrases such as anyway or anyhow In any case,

Schiffrin‟s research on Dms has been particularly relevant in the field of discourse studies and extremely influential for this ongoing research since she examined DMs

in the spoken discourse of ordinary conversation

Another study within the same approach is that of Redeker (1991), who defines a discourse operator (!91:1168) as:

[ ] a word or phrase that is uttered with the primary function of bringing to the listener‟s attention a particular kind of linkage of the upcoming utterance with the immediate discourse context An utterance in this definition is an intonationally and structurally bounded, usually casual unit

She proposed a revised model of discourse coherence based on three components: Ideational Structure, Rhetorical Structure and Sequential Structure Redeker (1991:1170) points out that “any utterance … in a discourse is then considered to always participate in all three components, but one will usually dominate and suggest itself as the more relevant linkage of this utterance to its context” She revises Schiffrin‟s notion of “core meaning” and expands on this suggesting that

“the core meaning should specify the marker‟s intrinsic contribution to the semantic representation that will constrain the contextual interpretation of the utterance”

The third approach and is the one that the present builds upon: Fraser‟s DMs definition and taxonomy of DMs categories This perspective analyses and studies DMs from a grammatical-pragmatic aspect He characterized DMs as linguistic expressions According to Fraser (1999:936) this linguistic expression or DM:

(i) has core meaning which can be enriched by the context

(ii) signals the relationship that the speaker intends between the utterance the

DM introduces and the foreign utterance (rather than only bringing up the relationship, as Schiffrin suggests)

Fraser goes on defining DMs as:

[…] a class of lexical expressions drawn primarily from the syntactic classes of conjunctions, adverbs, and prepositional phrases With certain exceptions, they signal a relationship between the interpretation of the segment they introduce, S2 and the prior segment, S1 (1999:937)

Fraser agrees with Schiffrin saying that DMs have a “core meaning”, and he adds at this point that their meaning is procedural and not conceptual He classifies two types of DMs: “those that relate the explicit interpretation conveyed by S2 with some aspect associated with the segment, S1; and those that relate the topic of S2 to that of S1.”

In a recent publication, Fraser describes the form for a DM sequence, that is, S1 -

DM + S2, where the S1 and S2 are discourse segments consisting of clauses, or the remain of clauses from which portions have been elided In this article he defines a

DM as:

a lexical expression, not necessary restricted to a single word and it need not be in S2- initial position […] In addition the S2 can generally be uttered by the speaker

of S2 or a second speaker (2004:15)

And in the more recent publication, Towards a Theory of Discourse Markers, Fraser

describes the canonical definition of DM

For a sequence of discourse segments S1 – S2, each of which encodes a complete message, a lexical expression LE functions as a discourse marker if, when it occurs

in S2-initial position (S1 – LE + S2), LE signals that a semantic relationship holds between S2 and S1 which is one of:

a) Elaboration;

b) Contrast;

c) Inference; or d) Temporality

This definition restricts a DM to only a lexical expression, thereby excluding verbal gestures, syntactic structures, and aspects of prosody such as intonation or stress

non-Secondly, the definition specifies that S1 and S2 are single contiguous discourse segments

Also, the definition requires that S1 and S2 encode a complete message, which will

be illustrated by the following example:

a Water freezes at 0 degrees but boils at 100 degrees

b The movie is over, so we might as well go directly to the party

Finally, the definition specifies that every DM signals one of four types of relationship DM marks a relationship between S1 and S2 which the speaker of S2 intends the hearer to recognize

To summarize, the present study builds upon Fraser‟s (1999) taxonomy of DMs categories This taxonomy, as compared to the similar taxonomies of DMs, is mainly used for the classification of written discourse and seems to be the most comprehensive classification in written discourse

3.2.2 Properties of discourse markers

Based on his earlier research, Fraser (2005) discusses the phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic properties of these units

3.2.2.1 Phonological properties

There do not seem to be any strong generalizations about the phonology associated with DMs They are not normally unstressed but they may be, especially when the

DM is monosyllabic, for example, but, so, and and, and, where the sequence

consists of one sentence: S1+DM+S2 such as (12a) above When the DM is in initial position, as in (16)

a Child: There was a big puddle

Parent: So- you had to jump right in?

of an entire phrase (as a consequence; I mean and that is to say)

3.2.2.3 Syntactic properties and classification

According to DMs syntactic properties, he states there are five separate and distinct syntactic categories that contribute primarily to DMs:

a COORDINATE CONJUNCTIONS (and, but, or, nor, so, yet,…)

b SUBORDINATE CONJUNCTIONS (after, although, as, as far as, as if, as long as, assuming that, because, before, but that, directly, except that, given that, granting that, if, in case, in order that, in that, in the event that, inasmuch as, insofar that, like, once, provided that, save that, since, such that, though, unless, until, when(ever), whereas, whereupon, wherever, while,…)

c ADVERBIALS (anyway, besides, consequently, furthermore, still, however, then,…)

d PREPOSITIONS (despite, in spite of, instead of, rather than,…)

e PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES (above all, after all, as a consequence (of that),as a conclusion, as a result (of that), because of that, besides that,

by the same token, contrary to that, for example, for that reason, in addition (to that), in any case/event, in comparison (with that), in contrast (to that), in fact, in general, in particular, in that case/instance, instead of that, of course, on that condition, on that basis, on the contrary, on the other hand, on top of it all, in other words, rather than that, regardless of that,…)

For the prepositional phrases, there are three variations:

a Fixed Form: above all, after all, as a conclusion,…

b PREP+that (where that refers to S1) despite that, in spite of that, in addition to that,…

c DM+of this/that (where that refers to S1): as a result of that, because of that, instead of doing that), rather(than do/that)

The following sequences reflects the possible syntactic arrangements of DMs in sequences

a S1, DM+S2

Coordinate Conjunction: John left late, but he arrived on time Subordinate Conjunction: John was sick because he had eaten spoiled fish

b S1 DM+ S2

Coordinate conjunction: John left late But he arrived on time

Adverbial: John left late However, he arrived on time

Preposition Phrase: John came late After all, he‟s the boss Preposition: John left late Despite that, he arrived on time

c DM+S1, S2

Preposition: Despite the fact that John left late, he arrived on time

3.2.2.4 Semantic properties and classification

There are four basic semantic relationship reflected in their use, with classification within each of these basis relations

sub-a CONTRASTIVE MARKERS (CDMs) but, alternatively, although,

contrariwise, contrary to expectations, conversely, despite (this/that), even so, however, in spite of (this/that), in comparison (with this/that), in contrast (to this/that), instead (of this/that), nevertheless, nonetheless, (this/that point), notwithstanding, on the other hand, on the contrary, rather (than this/that), regardless (of this/that), still, though, whereas, yet

…

b ELABORATIVE MARKERS (EDMs) and, above all, also, alternatively,

analogously, besides, by the same token, correspondingly, equally, for example, for instance, further(more), in addition, in other words, in particular, likewise, more accurately, more importantly, more precisely, more to the point, moreover, on that basis, on top of it all, or, otherwise, rather, similarly, that is (to say)

c INFERENTIAL MARKERS (IDMs) so, after all, all things considered, as a

conclusion, as a consequence (of this/that), as a result (of this/that), because (of this/that), consequently, for this/that reason, hence, it follows that, accordingly, in this/that/any case, on this/that condition, on these/those grounds, then, therefore, thus

d T EMPORAL MARKERS (TDMs) then, after, as soon as, before,

eventually, finally, first, immediately afterwards, meantime, meanwhile, originally, second, subsequently, when

3.2.3 Types of discourse markers

Although there are more than 100, the writer has found only four basic semantic relationships reflected in their use, with sub-classifications within each of these basis relations which is based on Fraser‟s taxonomy

a CONTRASTIVE MARKERS (CDMs) but, alternatively, although, contrariwise,

contrary to expectations, conversely, despite (this/that), even so, however, in spite

of (this/that), in comparison (with this/that), in contrast (to this/that), instead (of this/that), nevertheless, nonetheless, (this/that point), notwithstanding, on the other hand, on the contrary, rather (than this/that), regardless (of this/that), still, though, whereas, yet

b ELABORATIVE MARKERS (EDMs) and, above all, also, alternatively,

analogously, besides, by the same token, correspondingly, equally, for example, for instance, further(more), in addition, in other words, in particular, likewise, more accurately, more importantly, more precisely, more to the point, moreover, on that basis, on top of it all, or, otherwise, rather, similarly, that is (to say)

c INFERENTIAL MARKERS (IDMs) so, after all, all things considered, as a

conclusion, as a consequence (of this/that), as a result (of this/that), because (of this/that), consequently, for this/that reason, hence, it follows that, accordingly, in this/that/any case, on this/that condition, on these/those grounds, then, therefore, thus

d T EMPORAL MARKERS (TDMs) then, after, as soon as, before, eventually,

finally, first, immediately afterwards, meantime, meanwhile, originally, second, subsequently, when

3.3 Role of discourse markers in writing

Discourse markers are linking words and phrases which establish the logical relationship between ideas within a sentence or between sentences They also improve the flow and coherence of writing that is a smooth movement from one idea or piece of information in a text to the next Discourse markers are, thus, guideposts for readers that help them to better follow the text, promote written communication, and reader‟s comprehension of coherent discourse

CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY

1 Background of the site for data collection

The argumentative essays examined in this study arouse out of Writing semester 4 that students at Business English Department have to complete the Writing skill is taught in four semesters from Writing 1 and 2 about Sentence writing to Writing 3 about Paragraph writing and Writing 4 about Essay Writing 4 is designed for the students majored in English of the Faculty of Foreign Languages, NEU, whose level

of English is upper-intermediate and have completed one section for Sentence Writing, and two sections for Paragraph Writing The course provides students with basic knowledge of essay organization, unity and coherence, ways to improve academic writing style In the next part of the course, students go through different kinds of essay: process analysis, cause and effect, classification, reaction, comparison and contrast, discussion essays and especially argumentative essays are the emphasis With various practice tasks, writing in each lesson comes in its natural process: gathering vocabulary and ideas for a topic, brainstorming and outlining, writing, and editing This course aims at equipping students with fundamental understanding of the essay first, and then supplying them with practice tasks in writing different kinds of essay Moreover, the course also raises students‟ awareness of using the right academic writing style, encourages them to edit their own writing, and acquaints them with timed writing

2 Data gathering technique

The data gained is primary data consisting students‟ essays This section explains how data was obtained

At the start of 13-week course, the researcher attended writing sessions to observe nature of writing training and practice During the attendance, the course syllabus and the student workbook and worksheet were obtained Also, the researcher approached students in those sessions to distribute Invitation letters (Appendix A), which informed them of the research project as well as inviting them to participate

Invitation letters were sent via students‟ emails as well Willing students were asked

to fill in the Student Information Sheet (Appendix B) for demographic information about their education, language proficiency

3 The participants

A sample of 38 participants include all second year students They all started learning English in fourth grade of primary school at the age of 10 and had been exposed to the same total number of lessons of English None of the participants had spent any considerable time in an English-speaking country

From the way in which the task was formulated, it is evident that it was aimed at investigating a wide range of knowledge and competences in written communication when they write academic essays, including use of:

- Linking expression and other devices aimed at achieving the coherence of the text

represented a type of task to which participants had frequently been exposed in the course of their classes

5 Procedure

Both sample groups were tested on the same day in order to avoid participants informing each other about the task content The testing was conducted in a usual classroom environment during regular English classes It lasted for 40 minutes and participants‟ English teacher was present during the test Care was taken that teachers were not aware of the final aim of the study The researcher did not want to reveal in advance her intention to focus on discourse markers prior to or during the writing task Also, she did not disclose in advance the topic participants were to write on in order to avoid possible student temptation or teacher temptation to prepare for writing about this particular topic

The topic of the argumentative essay was “Today, the high sales of popular consumer goods reflect the power of advertising and not the real needs of the society in which they are sold To what extent do you agree or disagree?”

The essays were reviewed by the researcher with regard to two aspects First, the discourse markers used in the essays were tallied for later analysis In addition, the essays were scored with respect to their quality In order to ensure the reliability of scoring,

20% of the essays were scored by the researcher and an experienced university professor who completed her MA course of TESOL at University of Queensland, Australia and then the inter-rater reliability of the scores was estimated through Chronbach‟s Alpha formula for inter-rater reliability; the obtained reliability index was 0.75, which is an acceptable reliability index Then the rest of the essays were scored by the researcher, herself