Title Eng The Use of Discourse Markers in EFL Classrooms:
Challenges and Solutions
1
Ar ﺎت واﻟﺤﻠﻮلF اﻟﺘﺤﺪ:ﺔCA1 B ﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠ: ﻓﺼﻮل ﺗﻌﻠ02 اﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﻋﻼﻣﺎت اﻟﺨﻄﺎب
Ku ﻨ\ﺎری وU ﺋﺎ:یA1 B ﺋ[ﻨ\ﻠO1 زﻣﺎO1ﻨﺪXW ﺧO1ﺎJIU ﻫﯚI ﮔﻮﺗﺎر ﻟO1ﺎJﺸﺎﻧﺪەرەP ﻧO1ﻨﺎMﺎرﻫJIH
ﺎنJﭼﺎرەIﮕXڕ
Name of Eng Rashwan Ramadan Salih
Researcher Ar رﺷﻮان رﻣﻀﺎن ﺻﺎﻟﺢ
Ku ﺢUزان ﺳﺎIڕەﺷﻮان ڕەﻣ
Place of work Eng College of Education, Salahaadin University, Erbil
Ar ﻞ:h أر- ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺻﻼح اﻟﺪﻳﻦ،ﺔ:hAgﺔ اﻟ:ﻠf
w
Ku AzBوﻟI ﻫ- ددﯾﻦIﺣvI زاﻧﮑﯚی ﺳ،روەردەIs یAr B ﮐﯚﻟ
Email
[email protected]Mobile 0750 452 4034
DOI http://doi.org/10.31972/vesal12.03
Abstract Eng This paper investigates the effect of using discourse markers on the
writing skills of Kurdish university students. By revising the
related literature, it appeared that so far there is no consensus on
the actual effect of the explicit presence of discourse markers on
foreign language writing. Many studies concluded that different
discourse markers have different effects on the writing of foreign
language learners (Morell, 2004; Ying, 2007; Castro and Marcela
2009; Dariush and Mohamad 2015, etc..). The current research
tries to find out if there are any cross-linguistic factors that could
cause issues for students in EFL modules. Data for the current
study were collected from essays written by Kurdish students at the
English Department in Salahaddin University, Erbil. In total, 20
essays were received with total of 19872 words and total 261 DMs
were found in the data. A mixture of quantitative and qualitative
methods was used to analyse the data. The raw frequencies of the
DMs were: Additive (101 = 0.5 %), Adversative (45 = 0.22 %),
Causal / Conditional (83 = 0.4 %), and Temporal (32 = 0.16 %).
The findings suggested that level of attention to and appropriate
use of discourse markers were significantly unbalanced, and
1
various misuses were found. Sample errors in using the DMs were
selected for a qualitative analysis. It is recommended that discourse
markers are taught individually not in groups with more focus on
the more difficult discourse marker types.
Ar ﻳAgﻛﺰ ﻫﺬا اﻟ~ﺤﺚ ﻋ €ﺗﺄﺛ ABاﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﻋﻼﻣﺎت اﻟﺨﻄﺎب ﻋ €ﻣﻬﺎرات اﻟ„ﺘﺎHﺔ ﻟﺪى
ﻃﻼب اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺎت اﻟ„ﺮدFﺔ .ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﻣﺮاﺟﻌﺔ اﻷدﺑ:ﺎت ذات اﻟﺼﻠﺔ ،اﺗﻀﺢ أﻧﻪ ﺣ•g
اﻵن ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ إﺟﻤﺎع ﻋ €اﻟﺘﺄﺛ ABاﻟﻔﻌ €2ﻟﻠﻮﺟﻮد اﻟ”Cـ ـﺢ ﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎت اﻟﺨﻄﺎب )(DM
ﻋ €اﻟ„ﺘﺎHﺔ Hﻠﻐﺔ أﺟﻨ:šﺔ .ﺧﻠﺼﺖ اﻟﻌﺪFﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺪراﺳﺎت إ œأن ﻣﺆžrات اﻟﺨﻄﺎب
Ÿاﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻷﺟﻨ:šﺔ )ﻣﻮرCﻞ 2004 ،؛ اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺗﺄﺛABا gت ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻋ €ﻛﺘﺎHﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﻠ 2
.
ﻳﻨﺞ 2007 ،؛ fﺎﺳAو وﻣﺎرﺳ:ﻼ 2009؛ دارCﻮش وﻣﺤﻤﺪ ، 2015إﻟﺦ( Fﺤﺎول
اﻟ~ﺤﺚ اﻟﺤﺎ œ2ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻣﺎ إذا fﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﻨﺎك أي ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ ﻟﻐCWﺔ Fﻤﻜﻦ أن ®ﺴ°ﺐ ﻣﺸ²ﻼت
1
ﻟﻠﻄﻼب 02وﺣﺪات اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠ CA1 Bﺔ fﻠﻐﺔ أﺟﻨ:šﺔ .ﺗﻢ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺑ:ﺎﻧﺎت اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻟ:ﺔ
1 1
ﻣﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻻت ﻛﺘﺒﻬﺎ ﻃﻼب أ ¶ﺮاد 02ﻗﺴﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠ CA1 Bﺔ 02ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺻﻼح اﻟﺪﻳﻦ،
ً 1
أر:hﻞ 02 .اﻟﻤﺠﻤWع ،ﺗﻢ اﺳﺘﻼم 20ﻣﻘﺎﻻ ﺑ¹ﺟﻤﺎf 19872 œ2ﻠﻤﺔ وﺗﻢ اﻟﻌﺜﻮر ﻋ€
1
إﺟﻤﺎ 02 DMs 261 œ2اﻟﺒ:ﺎﻧﺎت .ﺗﻢ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﻣ¾Cـ ـﺞ ﻣﻦ اﻷﺳﺎﻟ:ﺐ اﻟ¿ﻤ:ﺔ واﻟﻨﻮﻋ:ﺔ
:Àﻣﻀﺎﻓﺔ )، (٪0.5 = 101 g
ﻟﺘﺤﻠ:ﻞ اﻟﺒ:ﺎﻧﺎتf .ﺎﻧﺖ اﻟAددات اﻷوﻟ:ﺔ ﻟﻠـ 2 DMs
ﻋﺮﺿ:ﺔ ) ، (٪0.22 = 45ﺳšﺒ:ﺔ žr Äﻃ:ﺔ ) ، (٪0.4 = 83زﻣﺎﻧ:ﺔ ).(٪0.16 = 32
أﺷﺎرت اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ إ œأن ﻣﺴﺘﻮى اﻻﻫﺘﻤﺎم واﻻﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻤﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎت اﻟﺨﻄﺎب fﺎن
ﻏ ABﻣﺘﻮازن Çﺸ²ﻞ ﻛﺒ ، ABوﺗﻢ اﻟﻌﺜﻮر ﻋ €إﺳﺎءة اﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ .ﺗﻢ اﺧﺘ:ﺎر ﻋﻴﻨﺔ
1
.Ëﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﺴﻦ أن ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺪرÌﺲ 2 ﻣﻦ اﻷﺧﻄﺎء 02اﺳﺘﺨﺪام DMsﻹﺟﺮاء ﺗﺤﻠ:ﻞ ﻧﻮ
1
ﻋﻼﻣﺎت اﻟﺨﻄﺎب Çﺸ²ﻞ ﻓﺮدي وﻟÎﺲ 02ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎت ﻣﻊ اﻟAgﻛ Ç A1 Bﺸ²ﻞ أ ¶ AÏﻋ €أﻧﻮاع
ﻋﻼﻣﺎت اﻟﺨﻄﺎب اﻷ ¶ AÐﺻﻌhWﺔ.
Ku ﺋIم ﺗÒÑXWﻨIوەIH IÓدواداﭼﻮون ﺑﯚ JﺎرÒﮕIری JIHﺎرﻫMﻨﺎ O1ﻧPﺸﺎﻧﺪەری ﮔﻮﺗﺎر ﻟIﺳIر
ﺗﻮاﻧﺎÔﺎ O1ﻧﻮوﺳﯿ •1ﺧXWﻨﺪJﺎرا O1زاﻧﮑﯚی ﮐﻮردی دەJﺎت IH .ﭘ×ﺪاﭼﻮوﻧIوە IHﺋIدەﺑØﺎgO
IsﯾﻮەﻧﺪÓﺪار ،دەرﮐIوت ﮐ Iﺗﺎ ﺋÙﺴﺘﺎ ﻫﯿﭻ ﮐﯚدەﻧﮕﯿIØک ﻟIﺳIر JﺎرÒﮕIر O2ڕاﺳﺘIﻗﯿﻨIی
ﺑﻮو O1ڕوو O1ﻧPﺸﺎﻧﺪەری ﮔﻮﺗﺎر ﻟIﺳIر ﻧﻮوﺳﯿ •1زﻣﺎ O1ﺑØﺎ O1ﻧ[ .IØزۆرXﮏ ﻟI
ﺗÒÑXWﻨIوەJﺎن ﮔÞIﺸßﻨ IﺋIو ﺋIﻧﺠﺎﻣIی ﮐ IﻧPﺸﺎﻧﺪەری ﮔﻮﺗﺎری ﺟØﺎواز JﺎرÒﮕIری
ﺟØﺎوازÒﺎن ﻟIﺳIر ﻧﻮوﺳﯿ •1ﻓAzBﺧﻮازا O1زﻣﺎ O1ﺑØﺎ O1ﻫ(Morell, 2004; Ying, IÓI
2007; Castro and Marcela 2009; Dariush and Mohamad 2015,
etc..).ﺋIم ﺗÒÑXWﻨIوە IÓﻫIوUﺪەدات ﺑﺰاﻧÙﺖ ﺋﺎÓﺎ ﻫﯿﭻ ﻫﯚJﺎر òXزﻣﺎﻧIوا O1ﻫ IÓIﮐI
دەﺗﻮاﻧÙﺖ ﺑMšﺘ Iﻫﯚی ﮐÙﺸ Iﺑﯚ ﺧXWﻨﺪJﺎران ﻟ IﻣﯚدﯾﻮﻟJIﺎ EFL O1داﺗﺎÔﺎ O1ﺋIم
ﺗÒÑXWﻨIوە IÓﻟ IوﺗﺎرەJﺎن ﮐﯚﮐﺮاوﻧIﺗIوە ﮐ IﻟIﻻIÓن ﺧXWﻨﺪJﺎرا O1ﮐﻮرد ﻟörIH I
w
ﺋ[ﻨ\ﻠ A1 Bی ﻟ Iزاﻧﮑﯚی ﺳvIﺣIدﯾﻦ ﻟ IﻫIوﻟ AzBﻧﻮوžاونIH .ﮔﺸ ٢٠ •gوﺗﺎر وەرﮔABاون IH
ﮐﯚی ﮔﺸ ١٩٨٧٢ •gوﺷ Iو ﮐﯚی ﮔﺸ DM ٢٦١ •gﻟ IداﺗﺎÔﺎﻧﺪا دۆزراIÓوە .ﺑﯚ
ﺷØﮑﺮدﻧIوەی داﺗﺎÔﺎن ﺗ×ﮑIÓIUIک ﻟ IﺷMﻮازی ﭼIﻧﺪا OgIÓو ﭼﯚﻧﺎJIH OgIÓﺎرﻫA1Mا.
ژﻣﺎرەی ﺳIرەﺗﺎ DMO2ەJﺎن ﺑ •gÒÿﺑﻮون ﻟ :IزÒﺎدﮐIر ) ،(% 0.5 = 101ﻧIر= 45) •1X
،(% 0.22ﻫﯚJﺎر ÄﻣIرﺟﺪار ) ،(% 0.4 = 83و Jﺎ .(% 0.16 = 32) OgدۆزÒﻨIوەJﺎن
ﭘÙﺸ"Øﺎر دەﮐIن ﮐ Iﺋﺎﺳ •gﮔﺮﻧﮕØﺪان و JIHﺎرﻫMﻨﺎ O1ﮔﻮﻧﺠﺎوی ﻧPﺸﺎﻧﺪەرەJﺎ O1ﮔﻮﺗﺎر IH
ﺷMﻮەIH #IÓرﭼﺎو ﻧﺎﻫﺎوﺳIﻧﮓ ﺑﻮوە ،و ﺧﺮاپ JIHﺎرﻫMﻨﺎ O1ﺟﯚراوﺟﯚر دۆزراIÓوە.
ﻫ IUIﻧﻤﻮوﻧIﯾJIØﺎن ﻟJIH IﺎرﻫMﻨﺎ O1ﻧPﺸﺎﻧﺪەرەJﺎ O1ﮔﻮﺗﺎر ﺑﯚ ﺷ&Øﺎر #IØÒﭼﯚﻧﺎOgIÓ
ﻫXAr Ï UIﺮدران .ﭘÙﺸ"Øﺎر دەﮐXÿﺖ ﮐ IﻧPﺸﺎﻧﺪەری ﮔﻮﺗﺎر IHﺗﺎ' ﻓH AzBﮑXÿﻦ ﻧIک IH
ﮔﺮو(×ﮏ ﮐ IزÒﺎﺗﺮ ﺳIرﻧﺠØﺎن ﻟIﺳIر ﺟﯚرەJﺎ O1ﻧPﺸﺎﻧﺪەری ﮔﻮﺗﺎر ﻗﻮرﺳ AgﺑÙﺖ.
Keywords Eng TEFL, Writing, Discourse Markers
Ar ﺗﺪرÌﺲ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺠﻠ CA1 Bﺔ fﻠﻐﺔ أﺟﻨ:šﺔ ،ﻛﺘﺎHﺔ ،ﻋﻼﻣﺎت اﻟﺨﻄﺎب
Ku ) ،ﻧPﺸﺎﻧﺪەری ﮔﻮﺗﺎر ﻓAzBﮐﺮد O1زﻣﺎ O1ﺋ[ﻨ\ﻠ A1 Bی وەک زﻣﺎﻧ× òﺑØﺎ ،O1ﻧﻮوﺳ 1 B
2
The Use of Discourse Markers in EFL Classrooms: Challenges and Solutions
Rashwan Ramadan Salih
College of Education, Department of English, Salahaddin University – Erbil
DOI: http://doi.org/10.31972/vesal12.03
Abstract
This paper investigates the effect of using discourse markers on the writing skills of Kurdish
university students. By revising the related literature, it appeared that so far there is no
consensus on the actual effect of the explicit presence of discourse markers on foreign language
writing. Many studies concluded that different discourse markers have different effects on the
writing of foreign language learners (Morell, 2004; Ying, 2007; Castro and Marcela 2009;
Dariush and Mohamad 2015, etc..). The current research tries to find out if there are any cross-
linguistic factors that could cause issues for students in EFL modules. Data for the current study
were collected from essays written by Kurdish students at the English Department in Salahaddin
University, Erbil. In total, 20 essays were received with total of 19872 words and total 261 DMs
were found in the data. A mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods was used to analyse
the data. The raw frequencies of the DMs were: Additive (101 = 0.5 %), Adversative (45 = 0.22
%), Causal / Conditional (83 = 0.4 %), and Temporal (32 = 0.16 %). The findings suggested
that level of attention to and appropriate use of discourse markers were significantly
unbalanced, and various misuses were found. Sample errors in using the DMs were selected for
a qualitative analysis. It is recommended that discourse markers are taught individually not in
groups with more focus on the more difficult discourse marker types.
Key words: TEFL, Writing, Discourse Markers,
3
1- Introduction
English is considered as the major international language in various fields of study like
business, science, entertainment, communications, and even on the Internet. Knowledge of
English is necessary, at least at a basic level, in many professions and occupations throughout
the globe. Consequently, English language teaching is increasingly taking place not only in
English speaking countries, but in the foreign English learners’ own country. Teaching English
as a foreign language usually occurs within the classroom with contextual characteristics that
deserve special attention.
One common characteristic of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms is that the
teachers may be non-native speakers of the language they are teaching. From my experience as
a non-native teacher of English and as a student/teacher educator, I consider that research on
classroom interaction based on an analysis of the discourse can be very useful for two main
reasons: First, it may contribute to gaining a better understanding of what happens inside the
EFL classroom and second, it provides a valuable possibility to examine and describe the
language used by non-native students and teachers of EFL. Inevitably, there has been a lot of
research on this topic. Sinclair & Coulthard (1975) provide a comprehensive review, traced
back to the late 1940s of the considerable amounts of research on the language used by teachers
and pupils in classroom settings. The contribution by McCarthy (1991) on discourse analysis
for language teachers provides not only a sound theoretical framework and descriptions based
on research but also practical activities which informed teachers towards the language used
inside their own classrooms. Similarly, CelceMurcia & Olshtain (2000) propose a context and
discourse-based perspective on language teaching and learning to redefine the roles of teachers,
learners and materials. Despite the extensive work by Llurda (2005) who explicitly addresses
and puts together the research conducted in different EFL settings such as the Basque Country,
Catalonia, Brazil, and Hungary, the language used in writings by non-native English-speaking
students remains largely unexplored.
The aim of this exploratory study is to investigate writing skills of students in EFL classes in
the context of English as a foreign language where the students are nonnative speakers of the
language. Discourse marker usage is one specific aspect of writing and language use that is the
focus of my attention in this paper. Therefore, the occurrences of discourse markers will be
explored and described both quantitatively and qualitatively with an established approach
method in mind. Therefore, I have not attempted to validate, formulate, and hypothesize but
4
rather took simple statistical analyses as a starting point for a qualitative analysis of the
discourse marker frequencies used by non-native students of EFL classrooms.
2- Literature Review
Discourse Markers (DMs) have been widely studied by researchers even if discussions on
terminology and definable issues are still unresolved. However, there seems to be general
agreement on the fact that the production of coherent writings is an interactive process that
requires writers to draw upon communicative knowledge and pragmatic resources. The
following is a list of names by which DMs are recognized:
Longrace (1976) “mystery particles … grammatically optional and semantically or functionally
unmotivated”
At first, these particles came meaningless, but Longrace himself found a way to resolve this
problem by going beyond the level of sentence .
Discourse Particles: Aijmer (2002), Lam (2009a and 2010b) and Stede (2002)
Discourse Connectives: Unger (1998)
Pragmatic Markers: Brinton (1996) Fraser (1999)
Pragmatic Connectives: Van Dijk (1997)
Although DMs do not seem complicated, the former investigations reveal that it is not the case,
that is why different terminologies, definitions, classifications, and taxonomies are offered
(Aijmer, 2002; Brinton, 1996; Fraser, 1999; Schiffren, 1987; Blakemore, 2002):
Cohesion in English (Halliday and Hasan, 1976) Semantic values of DMs
Text and Context (Van Dijk, 1977) Pragmatic potentials of DMs
Fraser (1999): DMs are linguistically encoded clues which signal the speaker’s (writer’s)
intention.
According to van Dijk (1997) discourse is a form of language use which includes the functional
aspects of a communicative event. It means that people use language in order to communicate
ideas, beliefs or emotions in social events and situations such as an encounter with friends or a
lesson in the classroom. As Douglas (2001) points out, discourse analysis is the examination of
language used by the members of a speech community which involves looking at both language
5
form and language function. In this study, language is viewed as linguistic tool that is used to
guide classroom writing among adult nonnative students in EFL classrooms. As mentioned
earlier, one specific aspect of classroom language use is the occurrence of discourse markers.
This literature review deals with the two central concerns of this study: discourse markers
(DMs) and studies on the writing of nonnative EFL students.
Schiffrin operationally defines DMs as "sequentially dependent elements which bracket units
of talk" (1987, p. 31). She suggests that DMs are used in discourse because they provide
"contextual coordinates for utterances". That is, they contribute to building the local coherence
which is jointly constructed by speaker and hearer in their discourse structure, context, meaning
and action during interaction. Thus, DMs serve to show how what is being written is connected
to what has already been written. In the relevant literature, there are studies which deal, whether
generally or specifically, with a wide scope of DMs, however, difficulties arise as there is no
agreement among scholars when they refer to their terminology, classification and
functionality1.
Brinton (1996) points out that DM has been the most common name suggested for "seemingly
empty expressions found in oral discourse", however, she proposes the term pragmatic markers,
as pragmatic "better captures the range of functions filled by these items". Brinton compiles an
inventory of 33 markers that have received scholarly attention and proposes a broad number of
characteristics typical of these items. The characteristics were later adopted by Jucker & Ziv
(1998) who reordered them to combine features that relate to the same level of linguistic
description: phonological and lexical, syntactic, semantic, functional and sociolinguistic
features. They seem to be optional rather than obligatory features of discourse. Fraser suggests
that the absence of DMs "does not render a sentence ungrammatical and/or unintelligible" but
does "remove a powerful clue" (1988: 22). The different studies of DMs distinguish several
domains where they may be functional, in which there are included textual, attitudinal,
cognitive, and interactional parameters.
As far as the written form is concerned, Jucker & Ziv (1998) analyzed DMs as text-structuring
devices that serve to mark openings or closings of discourse units or transitions between these
units. In addition, DMs serve as modality or attitudinal indicators, as instructions on how given
sentences are to be processed or interpreted.
With regard to the study of DMs in classroom settings, Chaudron & Richards (1986)
investigated learning DMs by nonnative speakers of English living and studying in The United
States, i.e., in English as a Second Language (ESL) contexts. Chaudron & Richards (1986)
6
made use of four different versions of the same text with different categories of discourse
markers (baseline, micro, macro, or micro-macro versions). Overall results showed that macro-
markers produced better text memory than micro-markers. It was claimed that micro-markers
do not provide enough information to help in making content more relevant.
The fact that most studies on DMs have focused their attention on native (or bilingual) speakers
of English who acquire this pragmatic competence in their childhood might be an indicator of
the need to further explore and systematically investigate the language used by non-native
English speakers and writers. The current paper looks at the usage of DMs by non-native student
of English department. The DMs selected to amplify on in this study spread over four main
types of Additive, Adversative, Causal/Conditional and Temporal.
7
3- Methodology
A mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods is used in this paper. The data for this study
consists of a total of 20 essays written by 4th year students at the English department of College
of languages in Salahaddin University, Erbil. The total tokens in these 20 essays were 19872
words, of which a total of 261 DMs were used (see table 1). Preliminary analysis of the data
involved the range of frequencies regarding the usage of various types of DMs. The samples
present the commonest or most frequent DMs that were used by the students (Ying, 2007;
Castro and Marcela 2009; Dariush and Mohamad 2015).
Percentage
Type of DMs Raw frequency
(over all tokens) 19872
Additive 101 0.5 %
Adversative 45 0.22 %
Causal / Conditional 83 0.4 %
Temporal 32 0.16 %
Table 1: Frequencies of DMs
The procedures of analyzing data starts with collecting the data from the essays. Then, each of
the DMs used by the students were tabulated and classified according to Halliday and Hassan’s
1976 taxonomy of conjunctive relations in which the DMs are distributed into four main
categories: Additive, Adversative, Causal/Conditional, and Temporal. The analysis started
from counting the number of different classes of DMs used by each student and combined in a
total number of DMs in each category. In this case, the research result would inform which
category of DMs were more frequent than the others. The calculation was continued to
investigate errors in using DMs in the essays. This would give information about the students’
knowledge of appropriate use of DMS and their competency in maintaining textual cohesion
and coherence.
4- Findings and discussions
Analyzing students' errors is a valuable source of information concerning the transitional state
of the learners' competence and weaknesses (Al-Buainain, 2007). Looking at table1, it is
apparent that the use of Additive DMs was much higher than the other types of DMs. The
discrepancies in using different types of DMs and the frequency of using a category of DMs
over others could disclose invaluable explanation about the students’ competencies regarding
this topic and whether they have used DMs excessively and eventually they have misused them.
For instance, the Additive DMs came at the first place with 39% of all DMs used in the sample
8
data (See Figure 1). This is the highest frequency among the four types of DMs focused on this
study.
Figure 1:
Raw frequency of DMs in EFL classrooms
Additive Adversative Causal / Conditional Temporal
12%
39%
32%
17%
Examining the samples closely revealed that some of the students used DMs excessively and
made errors. The errors ranged from inappropriate and excessive use of DMs to major errors
while using DMs mistakenly. For instance, the double usage of DMs:
Sample errors in DMs usage:
DM combination:
…So I will be more confident for future. If I get the chance for more study abroad.
DM traffic:
“She succeeds gracefully in the levels of training. However, because of the political reasons
they make her to quit and to go home where she belongs. Moreover, Jane does not give up
easily and tries to make her way to join the forces again, therefore she makes a bold step which
make the authorities in a bad position and take her back to the forces. From then she continues
her training till the end, and she achieves her goal to become a strong and an independent
woman.”
Errors in using DMs: Wrong use of “because”
“Because the more you appear in a humble face, increases the degree of self-confidence.
Consequently I demand those who are responsible to develop the process of education to be
separately. Because it is better healthier for them.”
9
As far as the frequencies of the DMs are concerned, the high frequency of the Additive types
in the data shows that the students are influenced by the additive “w” (and) in their mother
tongue (Kurdish). That’s because Kurdish writers and speakers tend to use the additive DMs
more frequently than other DMs in Kurdish language (Salih, 2014).
10
5- Conclusions
This small-scale study showed that DMs were, to some degree, used by the non-native students
to organize their writings in the classroom and to fulfill interpersonal, pragmatic functions as
well. These findings might be useful to non-native EFL teachers and practitioners The findings
suggested that level of attention to and appropriate use of DMs were significantly unbalanced,
and various misuses were found.
Increased awareness on the textual functions of DMs could facilitate the structuring and
organization of the practitioners’ lesson as the DMs work as signals of the main segments (e.g:
frame markers) and perform a number of organizational functions such as topic shifts. Also, the
frequency of Additive DMs by Kurdish students of EFL classes indicates that they are
influenced by their mother tongue, because the frequency of additive DMs in Kurdish,
especially the additive DM “w” (and) is usually very high.
11
6- References:
Aijmer, K. (2002).English discourse particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Al-Buainain, H. (2007) Investigating the types and causes of errors in Arabic speakers'
writing. Published in Midraj,S. Jendli, A & Sellami (Eds.) Research in ELT Context. (S. 195-
224) (2007). UAE.
Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse
functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: the semantics and pragmatics of
discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
Brinton, R. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English. Grammaticalization and discourse
functions. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Castro, Chapetón, & Claudia Marcela, 2009. "The use and functions of discourse markers in
EFL classroom interaction," Profile Issues in Teachers' Professional Development 11, 57-78.
Celce-Murcia, Marianne, and Elite Olshtain. Discourse and context in language teaching: A
guide for language teachers. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Chaudron, C. and Richards, J. C. (1986) The Effect of Discourse Markers on the
Comprehension of Lectures, Applied Linguistics, Volume 7, Issue 2, Summer 1986, Pages
113-127, https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/7.2.113
Dyvik, H. (1998). "A translational basis for semantics". In Stig Johansson & Signe Oksefjell
(eds.) Corpora and cross-linguistic research: theory, method, and case studies.
Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi, 51-86.
Fischer, K. (2006). Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931-952.
Hall, A. (2004). The meaning of but: a relevance-theoretic analysis. UCL Working Papers in
Linguistics 16, 199-23.
Halliday, M. & Hasan R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd revised edition by
Christian M. M. Matthiessen. London: Arnold.
12
Hilker, K. (1991). The discourse maker well in the history of English. English Linguistics, 1,
91-110.
Jucker, A. and Ziv, Y. (1998) 'Discourse markers: introduction'. In A. H. Jucker and Y. Ziv.
(eds.). Discourse markers: description and theory. (pp. 1-12). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lam PWY (2009). Discourse particles in corpus data and textbooks: the case of well. Appl.
Linguistics. 31(2):260-281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp026
Llurda, Enric. "Non-native language TESOL students from the perspective of practicum
supervisors." Non-native language teachers. Springer, Boston, MA, 2005. 131-154.
Longacre (1976) 'Mystery' particles and affixes. Papers from the Twelfth Regional Meeting
Chicago Linguistic Society, April 23-25, 1976, Salikoko S. Mufwene, Carol A. Walker and
Sanford B. Steever (eds.) (pages 468-77). Chicago Linguistic Society .
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Moeschler, J. (1989). Pragmatic connectives, argumentative coherence, and relevance.
Argumentation 3(3). 321-339.
Morell, T. (2004) 'Interactive lecture discourse for university students EFL ' English for
Specific Purposes 23(3):325-338 .
Noël, D. (2003). 'Translations as evidence of semantics. An illustration." Linguistics 41.
Redeker, G. (1991). Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics, 29, 1139-1172.
Rezvani, S. A., A. N. Abdullah, Y. Mukundan, and D. J. Tannacito (YEAR) Discourse
connectors: a review of the history, definition and classification of the term. IDOSI, 2012 .
Salih, R. R. (2014). A comparative study of English and Kurdish connectives in newspaper
opening articles. Published PhD Dissertation. University of Leicester, UK.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English
Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
13
Stede, M. (2002) The Potsdam commentary Corpus, proceeding of the Workshop on
Discourse Annotation, 42nd Meeting of the association for Computational Linguistics,
Bercelona, Spain.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1979). 'Pragmatic connectives', Journal of Pragmatics 3: 447-56.
Ying, S. (2007) An analysis of DMs used by non-English learners : its implication for
teaching English as a foreign language. Retrieved.
14
