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

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

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

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.

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

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.

ON SOME VARIATION IN THE USE OF DISCOURSE MARKERS BY CZECH AND GERMAN STUDENTS OF ENGLISH

Since recent studies on academic English have shown considerable cross-cultural variation in texts written by non-native speakers (Clyne 1987, Ventola & Mauranen 1991, Čmejrková & Daneš 1997, Duszak 1997, Chamonikolasová 2005, Stašková 2005, Mur- Dueňas 2008, Wagner 2011, Dontcheva-Navratilova 2012, Povolná 2012), the paper investigates a corpus of diploma theses written by Czech and German students of English with the aim of fi nding out how novice non-native writers from different discourse communities (Swales 2004) use causal and contrastive discourse markers (DMs) associated with hypotactic and paratactic relations in order to build coherence relations (Taboada 2006) in academic texts. In addition, the author attempts to fi nd out whether there is any variation in the preferences of novice writers depending on the different fi elds of study, i.e. diploma theses written in the areas of linguistics and methodology, and whether the use of selected DMs by Czech and German students differs from the writing habits of native speakers of English.

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

This 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.

Combinations of Contrastive Discourse Markers in English

Discourse Markers are usually discussed as terms which signal the relationship between two contiguous sentences, S1—DM—S2 (“We started late. Yet, somehow, we arrived on time.”) In the present paper, I examine the class of English Contrastive Discourse Markers (CDMs) to determine what pairs of them occur acceptably in a sentence (“The health care system needs more primary care physicians. However, on the other hand, they are the doctors who are paid at the bottom of the scale.”), those which are unacceptable (“We could go to Jamaica for our vacation this year. On the other hand, nevertheless, we could stay home.”), and others for which the jury is out. Several tentative generalizations, including the role of spoken vs. written language are made but the complete solution is far down the road.