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




ĐỖ THỊ KIỀU LAN

AN INVESTIGATION INTO CORRELATION BETWEEN
DISCOURSE MARKERS USAGE FREQUENCY AND
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


Hanoi - 2012
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL
STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES





ĐỖ THỊ KIỀU LAN

AN INVESTIGATION INTO CORRELATION BETWEEN
DISCOURSE MARKERS USAGE FREQUENCY AND
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. V Đi Quang


Hanoi - 2012
6

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
7

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

8

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









1

PART A. INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale

Vietnamese government views English as a vital tool for exchanging knowledge
and doing business. Therefore, a command of English is emphasized, and English is

a required subject in public schools as well as private schools where grammar is
unofficially main focus in the process of teaching and studying. Vietnamese
students, especially those whose major field is related to English, however, face
considerable challenges as they begin their tertiary studies. Therefore, they need to
familiarize themselves with the requirement and purposes for writing argument
genres from the training institution. They need to realize the significance of
argumentative writing skills and factor that contributes to the flow of argumentative
essays content namely discourse markers or transitional signals and develop control
over language- discourse markers to improve the express arguments persuasively
and directly.

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

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.

3

4. Research questions

In this study the answers to the following research questions were of particular
interest:
1. What is the usage frequency of English discourse markers in students‟
argumentative essays?
2. How does the frequency of use of discourse markers correlate with the
quality of written essays?

To answer these questions, a study employing detailed linguistic analysis will be

pursued. The primary data comprises the analysis of argumentative essays written in
Academic writing course by 38 students at Business English Department, National
Economics University.

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.
4

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.
5

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
6

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.
7

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
8

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
9

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-
10

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.

11

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
12

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
13

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:
14

[ ] 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).
15


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.

16

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

17

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?
b. A: John is at home
B: But- I just saw him at the mall

3.2.2.2. Morphological properties
While many DM are monosyllabic (namely but, so, and), there are those which are
polysyllabic (such as furthermore, consequently and before) and other which consist
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,…)
18

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.

19

3.2.2.4. Semantic properties and classification
There are four basic semantic relationship reflected in their use, with sub-
classification within each of these basis relations.
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. TEMPORAL 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.
20

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. TEMPORAL 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.