10.57647/jntell.2025.0402.10

The Dispersion of Discourse Markers in Academic Publications: A Comparative Interlanguage Corpus-Assisted Analysis

PDF
  • Jaafar Issa Abdulabbas1,
  • Fatemeh Karimi*1,
  • Ahmed Rawdhan Salman Salman2,
  • Mahdi Vaez Dalili1,
  1. Department of English, Isf.C., Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
  2. Department of English and Literature, Al-Mustagbal University, Babylon, Hilla, Iraq

Received: 2025-02-07

Revised: 2025-03-04

Accepted: 2025-07-01

Published in Issue 2025-07-18

Copyright (c) 2025 Jaafar Issa Abdulabbas, Fatemeh Karimi, Ahmed Rawdhan Salman Salman, Mahdi Vaez Dalili (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Issa Abdulabbas, J., Karimi, F., Rawdhan Salman Salman, A., & Vaez Dalili, M. (2025). The Dispersion of Discourse Markers in Academic Publications: A Comparative Interlanguage Corpus-Assisted Analysis. Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL), 4(2). https://doi.org/10.57647/jntell.2025.0402.10
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 293

Abstract

This study is a comparative interlanguage corpus-assisted analysis of the dispersion of discourse markers in academic publications. This study analyzed 60 published academic articles in accredited journals from Iraqi and native English writers across different disciplines (30 Iraqi English writers, 30 Native English writers). The study was grounded upon Fraser’s (1999) theorization of syntactic-semantic-pragmatic aspects of discourse markers and his triadic classification of discourse markers. Besides, we employed a corpus linguistic tool named AntConc to spot the discourse markers and their frequencies in both Iraqi and Native English corpora. The findings revealed that evaluative discourse markers were the most frequently used discourse markers in both corpora. However, the Iraqi and Native English corpora differed only in the frequencies of the evaluative discourse marker items. This is whilst the inferential discourse markers appeared to be the least frequently used classification in both corpora. The overall frequency analysis indicated that the Iraqi English writers used significantly fewer discourse markers than the native English writers. This finding might be due to the significant typological features of Arabic in discourse organization properties that negatively interfere with the appropriate employment of discourse markers through English texts. In addition to typological differences, we argued that the reduced use of discourse markers in the Iraqi corpus may be due to cultural, structural, language acquisition, identity, and cognitive differences.

Keywords

  • Discourse markers, Academic publications, Interlanguage, Corpus linguistics, Iraqi English writers, Native English writers
PDF

References

  1. Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: an indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145. doi:10.1177/14614456020040020101
  2. Abdollah Zadeh, E. (2006). The role of textual signals in L2 text comprehension. ESP Malaysia, 12, 1–18.
  3. Akef, K. (2007). Assessing the steps adopted by Iranian student writers in their writing process: A model for developing rating scale descriptors. Unpublished Ph. D Dissertation, Islamic Azad University, Tehran Science and Research Branch.
  4. Al-khazraji, A. (2019). Analysis of discourse markers in essay writing in ESL classroom. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 559-572.
  5. Alotaibi, H. (2016). Comparison of metadiscourse markers in Arabic and English research articles in the introduction and conclusion sections. The Linguistics Journal, 10(1), 182-202.
  6. Al-Surmi, M. (2011). Discourse markers and reading comprehension: Is there an effect?. Theory & Practice in Language Studies (TPLS), 1(12).
  7. Andayani, W. (2014). The use of English discourse markers in the argumentative writing of EFL Indonesian and Thai University students: A comparative study. Journal of education, 7(1).
  8. Bacha, N. N. (2002). Developing learners’ academic writing skills in higher education: A study for educational reform. Language and Education, 16(3), 161-177.
  9. Bolden, G. B. (2009). Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’in English conversation. Journal of pragmatics, 41(5), 974-998.
  10. Bolton, K., Nelson, G., & Hung, J. (2002). A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing: Research from the International Corpus of English in Hong Kong (ICE-HK). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7(2), 165-182.
  11. Boonsuk, Y., Ambele, E. A., & Buddharat, C. (2019). Position of hesitation marker in everyday, informal conversation in English. ABAC Journal, 39(3), 129-140.
  12. Canagarajah, S. (2012). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. Routledge.
  13. Chapetón Castro, C. M. (2009). The use and functions of discourse markers in EFL classroom interaction. Profile Issues in TeachersProfessional Development, (11), 57-78.
  14. Choemue, S., & Bram, B. (2021). Discourse markers in academic and non-academic writings of Thai EFL learners. Studies in English Language and Education, 8(3), 1209-1226.
  15. Connor, U. (1984). A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second language students’ writing. Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication, 17(3), 301-316.
  16. Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. International journal of English studies, 1(2), 1-23.
  17. Dulger, O. (2007). Discourse Markers in Writing. Sourceselcuk University Social Sciences Institute Journal, 18, 257-270.
  18. Esfandiari, R., & Khatibi, Z. (2022). A cross-cultural, cross-contextual study of interactional metadiscourse in academic research articles: An interpersonal approach. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 40(2), 227-242.
  19. Eslami, Z. R., & Eslami-Rasekh, A. (2007). Discourse markers in academic lectures. Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 22-38.
  20. Field, Y., & Yip, L. M. O. (1992). A comparison of internal conjunctive cohesion in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English. RELC Journal, 23(1), 15-28.
  21. Fox Tree, J. E. (2015). Discourse markers in writing. Discourse Studies, 17(1), 64-82.
  22. Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 383–395.
  23. Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6, 167–190.
  24. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31. 931–952.
  25. Fraser, B. (2006). Towards a theory of discourse markers, in K. Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp.189–204). Amsterdam. Elsevier.
  26. Ghanbari, N., Dehghani, T., & Shamsaddini, M. R. (2016). Discourse markers in academic and non-academic writing of Iranian EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(7), 1451.
  27. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London: Longman.
  28. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (2014). Theory and Practice of Writing: An Applied Linguistic Perspective. Routledge.
  29. Granger, S. (1993). International corpus of learner English. In Jan Aarts, Pieter de Haan, and Nelleke Oostdijk (eds.), English language corpora: Design, analysis and exploitation, 51–71.
  30. Halliday, M. A. K., &. Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman University Press.
  31. Halliday, M.A.K., (2000). Introduction to Functional Grammar, second ed. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Beijing.
  32. Hama Shareef, F. M. (2015). The Problems of Using Discourse Markers in Kurdish EFL Undergraduate Students’ Essays. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(4), 230-238.
  33. Hernández, T.A. (2008). The effect of explicit instruction and input flood on students’ use of discourse markers on a simulated oral proficiency interview. Hispania, 91, 665–75.
  34. Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  35. Hussein, K. A. A., Khalil, J. A., & Abbas, N. F. (2018). Metadiscourse Markers in Master Thesis Abstracts of American and Iraqi English Theses. Arab World English Journal, 9(4), 347-360.
  36. Hyland, K. (2008). Metadiscoures. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Jalilifar, A., & Alipour. M. (2007). How explicit instruction makes a difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL learners’ reading comprehension skill. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38 (1), 35–52.
  37. Intarparawat, P. & Steffensen, M. S. (1995). The use of meta-discourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 253-272.
  38. Jalilifar, A. (2008). Discourse Markers in Composition Writings: The Case of Iranian Learners of English as a Foreign Language. English Language Teaching, 1(2), 114-122.
  39. Johnson, P. (1992). Cohesion and coherence in compositions in Malay and English language. RELC Journal, 23 (2), 1–17.
  40. Karasi, M. (1994). Cohesive features in the expository essays of secondary four (Express) and secondary five (Normal) students in Singapore. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Singapore, Nanyang Technological University.
  41. Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of writing research, 1(1), 1-26.
  42. Khatib, M. (2011). Comprehension of Discourse Markers and Reading Comprehension. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 243-250.
  43. Li, J., & Schmitt, N. (2009). The acquisition of lexical phrases in academic writing: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 85-102.
  44. Liu, M., & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 33, 623-635.
  45. Martínez, A. C. L. (2004). Discourse markers in the expository writing of Spanish university students. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE), (8), 63-80.
  46. Martínez, A. C. L. (2009). Empirical study of the effects of discourse markers on the reading comprehension of Spanish students of English as a foreign language. International Journal of English Studies, 9 (2).
  47. Maschler, Y. (2000). What can bilingual conversation tell us about discourse markers?: Introduction. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4(4), 437-445.
  48. Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Meta-text in Finnish-English economic texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 89-103.
  49. Mohamed, A. H., & Omer, M. R. (2000). Texture and culture: Cohesion as a marker of rhetorical organisation in Arabic and English narrative texts. RELC Journal, 31(2), 45-75.
  50. Moreno, C. P. A., O’riordan, S., & Chambers, A. (2006). Integrating a corpus of classroom discourse in language teacher education: The case of discourse markers. ReCALL, 18(1), 83-104.
  51. Narita, M., Sato, C. & Sugiura, M. (Eds.). (2004). Connector usage in the English essay writing of Japanese EFL learners. Proceedings from 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Lisbon, Portugal, 1171-1174.
  52. Nasser Alsager, H., Afzal, N., & Abdulaziz Aldawood, A. (2020). Discourse markers in Arabic and English newspaper articles: The case of the Arabic lakin and its English equivalent but. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume, 11.
  53. Nejadansari, D., & Mohammadi, A. M. (2015). The frequencies and functions of discourse markers in the Iranian university EFL classroom discourse. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 4(2), 3-20.
  54. Norment, N. (1994). Contrastive analyses of cohesive devices in Chinese and Chinese ESL in narrative and expository written texts. Chinese Language Teaching Association Journal, 29, 1, 49-81.
  55. Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology. London: Prince Hall.
  56. Redeker, G. (1991). Review article: Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics, 29 (6), 1139–1172.
  57. Richards, J.C., & Schmidt. R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. Harlow: Longman.
  58. Rido, A. (2010). The use of discourse markers as an interactive feature in science lecture discourse in L2 setting. Teflin Journal, 21(1), 90.
  59. Sabah, L. N., & Kamil, S. A. (2023). The Relationship between Iraqi EFL Preparatory Students’ Cognitive Load and Reading Comprehension. Alustath Journal for Human and Social Sciences, 62
  60. Sanders, T., & Noordman, L. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29, 37-60.
  61. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  62. Schiffrin, D. (2001). Discourse markers: language, meaning, and context. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. Hamilton, Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 56-75). Blackwell Publishers.
  63. Šimčikaitė, A. (2012). Spoken discourse markers in learner academic writing. Studies about languages, (20), 27-34.
  64. Steffensen, M. S. & Cheng, X. (1996). Meta-discourse and text pragmatics: How students write after learning about meta-discourse. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED400709.
  65. Tapper, M. (2005). Connectives in advanced Swedish EFL learners’ written English- preliminary results. The Department of English. Working Papers in English Linguistics, 5, 116- 144.
  66. Tehrani, A. R., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2012). The Pedagogical Impact of Discourse Markers in the Lecture Genre: EFL Learners' Writings in Focus. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 3(3).
  67. Vaez Dalili, M., & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. (2013). A Contrastive Corpus-Based Analysis of the Frequency of Discourse Markers in NE and NNE Media Discourse: Implications for a “Universal Discourse Competence”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 9(1), 39–69.
  68. Ventola, E. & Mauranen, A. (1993). Non-native writing and native revising of scientific articles. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED352149.
  69. Zhang, M. (2016). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across written registers. Discourse Studies, 18(2), 204-222.