DISCOURSE CONNECTORS IN THE ESP STUDENTS’ WRITINGS: A PRELIMINARY STUDY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31851/esteem.v7i2.16245Keywords:
Discourse Connectors, ESP Students’ WritingAbstract
Cohesion and coherent writing are important aspects of a well-written paragraph. For a paragraph to successfully communicate its meaning, it must be coherent and cohesive. Examining how English for Specific Purposes (ESP) students use discourse connectors in their writing was the aim of this study. The argumentative essays written by students enrolled in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) courses were the main focus of the study. Thirty-six essays from ESP students were chosen as the sample for this study using a purposive sampling technique. Methods of quantitative analysis were applied to the data. The results showed that the students' use of a wide variety of discourse connectors was lacking. Furthermore, they did not use enough accurate discourse connections. Additionally, it was seen that discourse connectors were being used excessively. In addition, the discourse connectors "and," "or," "because (of)," and "so (that)" were most frequently employed. The study produced a number of recommendations for instructional strategies and further investigation. Lastly, it was anticipated that this study would be helpful for future research on the application of discourse connectors.
References
Alarcon, J.B. & Morales, K.N.S. (2011). Grammatical cohesion in students’ argumentative essays. Journal of English and Literature, 2(5), 114-127.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Essex: Pearson Education, Limited.
Boardman, C.A.& Frydenberg, J. (2002). Writing to communicate: paragraphs and essays. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Braine, G. & Liu, M. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 33, 623-636.
Budiharso, T. (2006). The rhetoric features of English and Indonesian essays made by EFL undergraduate students. TEFLIN Journal, 17(2), 157-186.
Celce-Murcia, M. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/ EFL teacher’s course (2nd Edition). New York: Heinle& Heinle.
Christodoulidou, M. (2011). Lexical markers within the university lecture. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 5(1), 143-160.
Fadlilatur, R. (2010). The cohesion and coherence of thesis abstracts written by students of the English Letters and Language Department of UIN Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang. Retrieved March 25, 2013, from http://lib.uin-malang.ac.id/thesis/.../06320084-fadlilatur-rohmah.pdf
Fraser, B. & Malamud-Makowski, M. (1996). English and Spanish contrastive discourse markers. Language Science, 18(3-4), 863-881.
Fung, L. (2011). Discourse markers in the ESL classroom: a survey of teachers’ attitudes. The Asian EFL Journal. 13(2).
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Arnold Publishers.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (2015). Cohesion in English. New York: Routledge.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd edition). London: Arnold Publishers.
Jaya, A., Hermansyah, & Rosmiyati, E. (2019). Redefining Project Based Learning In English Class. Esteem Journal of English Education Study Programme, 2(https://jurnal.univpgri-palembang.ac.id/index.php/esteem/issue/view/304). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31851/esteem.v2i2.2423
Jung, J. (2009). Discourse markers in contrast: but, actually and well in native-nonnative English conversations between friends. Retrieved December 16, 2012, from http://udini.proquest.com/view/discourse-markers-in-contrast-but-pqid:1851113681/
McDonough, S. (2002). Applied Linguistics in language education. London: Arnold Publishers.
Modhish, A.S. (2012). Use of discourse markers in the composition writings of Arab EFL learners. English language Teaching, 5(5), 56-62.
Mumbi, C.M. & Simwinga, J. (2018). Challenges in the use of discourse markers in English as Second Language (ESL) Writing: Evidence from Selected Grade Twelve Pupils in Kitwe District, Zambia. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 5(2), 214-234. http://www/ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Sari, A., Jaya, A., Hermansyah, H., & Mortini, A. V. (2022). Using Mixidea Online Debating Strategy To Promote the Students’ Speaking Ability. Esteem Journal of English Education Study Programme, 5(2), 298–303. https://doi.org/10.31851/esteem.v5i2.8591
Priyatmojo, A.S. (2011). Cohesion and coherence of the students’ recount text and its implication for teaching writing of text types in English. Retrieved February 27, 2013, from http:// enotez.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/my-paper2.doc
Prommas, P. (2011). A comparative study of discourse connectors in argumentative compositions produced by Thai EFL learners and English-native speakers. Master. Thesis. Prince of Songkla University.
Ramasawmy, N. (2004). Conjunctive cohesion and relational coherence in students’ compositions. M.A. Thesis. University of South Africa.
Richards, J.C and R. Schmidt. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Longman.
Sanosi, A. B. (2024). Revisiting cohesion in academic writing: A corpus-based analysis of EFL learners use of conjunctions. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 64-78. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v14i1.70418
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D. and Hamilton, H.E. (2004). The handbook of discourse analysis. Victoria: Blackwell Publishing.
Wang, Y. & Tsai, P. (2007). Textual and contextual contrast connection: A study of Chinese contrastive markers across different text types. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 1775-1815.
Wang, Y., Tsai, P. & Yang, Y. (2010). Objectivity, subjectivity and intersubjectivity: evidence from qishi (‘actually’) and shishishang (’in fact’) in spoken Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 705-727.
Yang, S. (2011). Investigating discourse markers in pedagogical setting: a literature review. ARECLS, 8, 95-108.
Yang, W. & Sun, Y. (2012). The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguistics and Education 23, 31-48.
Zhang, M. (2000). Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities. RELC Journal, 31(1), 61-95.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Wuwuh Andayani
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright Notice
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
In order to assure the highest standards for published articles, a peer review policy is applied. In pursue of the compliance with academic standards, all parties involved in the publishing process (the authors, the editors and the editorial board and the reviewers) agree to meet the responsibilities stated below in accordance to the Journal publication ethics and malpractice statement.
Duties of Authors:
- The author(s) warrant that the submitted article is an original work, which has not been previously published, and that they have obtained an agreement from any co-author(s) prior to the manuscript’s submission;
- The author(s) should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal;
- The authors(s) make certain that the manuscript meets the terms of the Manuscript Submission Guideline regarding appropriate academic citation and that no copyright infringement occurs;
- The authors(s) should inform the editors about any conflict of interests and report any errors they subsequently, discover in their manuscript.
Duties of Editors and the Editorial Board:
- The editors, together with the editorial board, are responsible for deciding upon the publication or rejection of the submitted manuscripts based only on their originality, significance, and relevance to the domains of the journal;
- The editors evaluate the manuscripts compliance with academic criteria, the domains of the journal and the guidelines;
- The editors must at all times respect the confidentiality of any information pertaining to the submitted manuscripts;
- The editors assign the review of each manuscript to two reviewers chosen according to their domains of expertise. The editors must take into account any conflict of interest reported by the authors and the reviewers.
- The editors must ensure that the comments and recommendations of the reviewers are sent to the author(s) in due time and that the manuscripts are returned to the editors, who take the final decision to publish them or not.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
