scholarly journals Causal and Contrastive Discourse Markers in Novice Academic Writing

2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renata Povolná
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Contrastive Discourse Markers

scholarly journals The Use of Contrastive Discourse Markers by English-major Saudi Female Undergraduates at Qassim University in Academic Writing

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 51
Author(s):  
Rehab Hassan Al-Owayid
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Writing Skills ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Thinking Skills ◽  
Critical Thinking Skills ◽  
Test Analysis ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Contrastive Discourse Markers ◽  
English Major

Academic writing requires a skillful use of markers and linguistic features. The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the efficacy of a one-time intervention on the use of contrastive discourse markers (CDMs) by Saudi female English major undergraduates. The present study also surveyed the opinions of writing skills instructors about CDM instruction and investigated factors that may affect the use of CDMs by undergraduates. A convenience sample of 100 students was selected from Levels 6 and 8: fifty students of each were recruited from the Colleges of Arts and Sciences in Buraydah and Onayzah cities, Saudi Arabia. Pre- and post-tests were used to collect data from student participants. Data from teacher-participants were also gathered through a questionnaire. Results of t-test analysis support the hypothesis of the significant impact of the intervention on the mean scores of the intervention group, M = 10.90 vs. M = 6.24, t(98) = 12.03, p < 0.0001. There were no significant differences by grade level. The writing skills teachers reported that the knowledge of the different meanings of CDMs affects students' use of the markers. Factors such as the inadequate practice of critical thinking skills, the types of writing tasks, and reading-writing connection may influence students' use of CDMs. The results suggest that the knowledge of CDMs and the different meanings that they signal can improve learners to perform better.

scholarly journals Combinatory potential of contrastive discourse markers in English and Lithuanian: a semantic functional analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Greta Maslauskienė
Keyword(s):  
Functional Analysis ◽  
English Language ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Academic Discourse ◽  
Spoken Discourse ◽  
Contrastive Discourse Markers ◽  
Language Data

Although numerous studies have concentrated on individual discourse markers (henceforth, DMs) or their classes, little attention has been paid to their combinations, especially from a cross-linguistic perspective. Most of the studies are based on the English language data, whereas the combinatory potential of DMs in other languages remains largely unexplored. The present corpus-based study focuses on combinations of contrastive discourse markers (henceforth, CDMs) in English and Lithuanian by adopting Fraser’s (2013) approach to DMs. The aim of the study is to investigate the combinatory potential of CDMs in English and Lithuanian academic discourse, spoken discourse and fiction. The study presents a list of CDM combinations used in English and Lithuanian and investigates their semantic-pragmatic profile.

English and Spanish contrastive discourse markers

1996 ◽  
Vol 18 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 863-881 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Fraser ◽  
M. Malamud-Makowski
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Contrastive Discourse Markers

A contrastive corpus-based analysis of the frequency of discourse markers in NE and NNE media discourse: Implications for a “universal discourse competence”

2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehdi Vaez Dalili ◽  
Hossein Vahid Dastjerdi
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Contrastive Rhetoric ◽  
Media Discourse ◽  
Written Discourse ◽  
Political News ◽  
Semantic Categories ◽  
News Discourse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Contrastive Discourse Markers ◽  
Discourse Competence

AbstractThis article examines whether there are differences in the frequency of discourse markers (DMs) between Native English (NE) and Non-native English (NNE) corpora of political media discourse. Based on the grammatical-pragmatic perspective of discourse markers (Fraser, 2004), the discourse markers identified in the corpora were divided into four semantic categories: contrastive discourse markers (CDM), elaborative discourse markers (EDM), implicative discourse markers (IDM) and temporal discourse markers (TDM). The results revealed that: (i) in both corpora, implicative discourse markers (IDMs) and elaborative discourse markers (EDMs) have the lowest and highest frequency counts respectively, (ii) there are significant differences across the four types of discourse markers in both corpora, (iii) there is no significant difference in the aggregated frequency of discourse markers across NE and NNE political news discourse, and (iv) there are no relative NE/NNE frequency differences within each category of discourse markers. The findings point to the need for revisiting Kaplan's contrastive rhetoric, and provide evidence for the plausibility of a “ universal discourse competence” in advanced NNE written discourse.

scholarly journals Investigating Cohesion and Coherence Discourse Strategies of Chinese Students with Varied Lengths of Residence in Canada

2012 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krista Leo
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
First Language ◽  
Chinese Students ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Generation 1.5 ◽  
First Year ◽  
Writing Proficiency ◽  
First Year Students ◽  
Cohesive Devices ◽  
Discourse Strategies

This study examines how three age-on-arrival (AOA) groups of Chinese-background ESL students use two types of cohesive devices on a standardized essay exam. A discourse analysis of 90 first-year students’ expository writing samples was conducted to ascertain how factors such as first language (L1) and length of residence (LOR) in Canada influence a student’s ability to create cohesive and coherent writing. The study uses both quantitative and qualitative methods to explore how Canadian-born Chinese (CBC) students use lexical and referential discourse markers. Twelve essay features of this group of Generation 1.5 students are compared with those of two other cohorts of Chinese students with a shorter LOR. Key writing variables that measure academic writing proficiency were quantitatively analyzed to compare the expository writings of the CBC cohort with those of the later AOAs. Results indicate that synonymy and content words distinguish the writings of the CBC students from those of their later-arriving peers. A qualitative analysis of one CBC essay reveals that a more flexible and contextualized approach to evaluating writing by longterm Generation 1.5 students is required to acknowledge fully the productive lexical and discoursal strengths of these students.

scholarly journals The Use of Discourse Markers in Academic Writing by In-Service Primary School Teachers of English

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-229
Author(s):  
Oleksandr Kapranov
Keyword(s):  
Children's Literature ◽  
Primary School ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Primary Schools ◽  
Children’S Literature ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Computer Assisted ◽  
School Teachers ◽  
Literature And Linguistics ◽  
Primary School Teachers

AbstractThis paper presents and discusses a computer-assisted study that seeks to investigate the use of discourse markers (“DMs”) in academic writing in English as a Foreign Language (“EFL”) by a group of in-service primary school teachers (“participants”). The aim of the study is to establish whether or not there would be differences in the use of DMs in the corpus of academic writing in EFL in literature and linguistics written by the participants, who concurrently with teaching EFL at a range of primary schools are enrolled in an in-service tertiary course in English. The corpus of the study consists of the participants’ i) reflective essays in English linguistics and children’s literature in English, respectively, and ii) analytic explanatory essays in English linguistics and children’s literature, respectively. The corpus of the participants’ essays was analysed quantitatively in order to identify the frequency of DMs per 1,000 words. The results of the quantitative data analysis indicated that the participants’ use of DMs seemed to be, primarily, determined by i) genre conventions of academic writing in English associated with reflective essays and analytic explanatory essays and ii) the participants’ individual preferences. These findings are further presented and discussed in the paper.

scholarly journals Features of orality in the language of fiction: A corpus-based investigation

2021 ◽  
pp. 096394702110477
Author(s):  
Andreas H. Jucker
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
American English ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Small Range ◽  
Soap Operas ◽  
Narrative Fiction ◽  
Santa Barbara ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
The Status

This paper explores the pervasiveness of features of orality in the language of performed fiction. Features of orality are typical of spontaneous spoken conversations where they are the result of the ongoing planning process and the interaction between the interlocutors, but they also occur in the context of performed fiction (movies and plays) and in narrative fiction (e.g. novels). In these contexts, they are not the result of the spontaneous planning process but are generally produced to imitate such processes. In this paper, I explore a small range of such features (contractions, interjections, discourse markers, response forms and hesitators) in four corpora of performed fiction that have recently become available ( Corpus of American Soap Operas, TV Corpus, Movies Corpus and Sydney Corpus of Television Dialogue) and compare their frequency patterns with spontaneous face-to-face conversations in the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English and with narrative fiction and academic writing in the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). The results confirm that the selected features of orality are used regularly in performed fiction but less frequently than in spontaneous face-to-face interactions while they are rare in narrative fiction and almost entirely absent in academic writing. The results also show that the status of the transcriptions contained in these corpora needs to be assessed very carefully if they are to be used for a study of pragmatic features.

scholarly journals Comparison of the Use of Discourse Markers in English Speeches between Non-Native and Native Speakers of English

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 198-207
Author(s):  
Eva Yulita ◽  
Dwi Rukmini ◽  
Widhiyanto Widhiyanto
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Design ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Discourse Markers ◽  
Spoken Discourse ◽  
Qualitative Research Design ◽  
Contrastive Discourse Markers ◽  
Native Speakers Of English ◽  
Discourse Management

This study revealed the comparison of the use of discourse markers in English speeches between non-native and native speakers of English. The study focused on the types of discourse markers, the similarities and the differences between non-native and native speakers in using discourse markers. This study employed a qualitative research design with the data from the spoken discourse. The findings of the study showed that there were ten sub-categories of discourse markers that are practiced by non-native speakers, namely: assessment marker, manner of a speaking marker, evidential markers, hearsay markers, contrastive discourse markers, elaborative discourse markers, inferential discourse markers, discourse management markers, topic orientation markers, and attention markers. On the contrary, there were nine sub-categories of discourse markers that existed in English speeches, especially delivered by the native speakers such as assessment marker, manner of a speaking marker, evidential markers, hearsay markers, contrastive discourse markers, elaborative discourse markers, inferential discourse markers, topic orientation markers, and attention markers. The total of discourse markers produced by the non-native speakers was 301 utterances while native speakers of English were 269 utterances. Therefore, it is concluded that discourse markers were useful in English speeches either by non-native speakers or native speakers

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document