Examining Discourse Strategies and Stance Markers in ESL Students&rsquo; Reflective Essays

Pinky Mariel  Mangaya,

Examining Discourse Strategies and Stance Markers in ESL Students’ Reflective Essays

Discipline: Education

Abstract:

This study aimed to determine the discourse and stance markers in English as a Second Language (ESL) students’ reflective essays. A discourse analysis method was used in this study. The quantitative technique was utilized to count the number of instances of discourse and stance markers in reflective essays written by ESL students. Thus, it utilized Fraser’s (1999) taxonomy of DMs to classify the function of discourse markers and Knott’s (1996) Five Syntactic Category to identify the structure of discourse markers. The study made used of Hyland’s (2004) framework of stance to categorize the stance markers and Biber’s (2004) general framework of stance markers. As a result of the study, the discourse markers in ESL students’ reflective essays were classified into contrastive, elaborative, inferential, and temporal as based on Fraser’s (1999) taxonomy of DMs. Based on Knott’s (1966) Five syntactic categories, discourse markers in ESL students’ reflective essays were analyzed as coordinators, subordinators, conjunctive adverbs, prepositions, and prepositional phrases. Stance markers were categorized into hedges, boosters, attitude markers and self-mentions. The grammatical structure of stance markers was identified as modals with a semantic categories stance adverbial and complement clauses. It revealed that elaborative discourse markers were the most commonly used. Modals were the most favorable grammatical categories of stance markers. Moreover, it is recommended that language teachers and researchers may use the concept of discourse and stance markers in analyzing the ways in which learners present their ideas logically and critically

References:

Al-khazraji, A. (2019). Analysis of Discourse Markers in Essays Writing in ESL Classroom. International Journal of Instruction April 2019 Vol.12, No.2 e-ISSN: 1308-1470
Barnabas, J., & Adamu, M. (2012). ‘’Discourse Markers in Nigerian Television News Broadcast’’
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University press: Cambridge.
Brown, H.D. (2001). Language Assessment: Principle and Classroom Practice. New York.
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: the semantic pragmatics of discourse markers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chow, T. (2007). The effects of the process-genre approach to writing instruction on the expository essays of ESL students in a Malaysian secondary school (Doctoral dissertation). University Sains Malaysia.
Fraser, B. (1990). “An approach to discourse markers”. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 383-395
Fraser, B. (1999). What are Discourse Markers? Journal of Pragmatic. 31 : 931-952.
Gerard, S. (2010). Discourse Markers. Centre for Applied Linguistics. Learning English online at Warwick
Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied linguistics 23(2), 215-239
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of second language writing, 13(2),133-151.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Kamali, F., & Noori, H. (2015). The impact of discourse markers instruction on improving writing of intermediate EFL learners. Science Journal, 36(3), 944-949. doi: http://dergi.cumhuriyet.edu.tr/cumuscij.
Karaata, C., Cepik, C., & Cetin, Y. (2012). Enhancing the use of discourse markers in academic writing: The combination of incidental al acquisition and explicit instruction. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 11(40), 11- 29. doi: www.esosder.org
Knott, A. & R. Dale, (1994). Using linguistic Phenomena to Motivate a Set of Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes 18 (1), 35–62.
Litman, D. J. (1996). “Cue Phrase Classification Using Machine Learning”. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 5: 53-94
Martinez, A. C. L. (2004). Discourse markers in the expository writing of Spanish university students. Iberica, 8, 63-80.
Sanford, S. (2012). A comparison of metadiscourse markers and writing quality in adolescent written narratives (Doctoral Dissertation). The University of Montana.
Siniajeva, I. (2005). Discourse markers: Their functions and distribution across registers. In Yunus, M., & Haris, S. (2014). The use of
discourse markers among form four SLL students in essay writing. International Education Studies, 7(2). doi: http://10.5539/ies.v7n2p54
Sun, W. (2013). The importance of discourse markers in English learning and teaching. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,3(11). doi: http://10.4304/tpls.3.11.2136- 2140.
Swan, M. & B. Smith (Eds.) (2005). Learner English: A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and other Problems. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition, second edition, Oxford: Blackwell
Yunus, M., & Haris, S. (2014). The use of discourse markers among form four SLL students in essay writing. International Education Studies, 7(2). doi: http://10.5539/ies.v7n2p54.
Zhao, H. (2013). A study on the pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers among Chinese English learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(4), 707-714. doi: http://10.4304/jltr.4.4.707-714