VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL
STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

ĐỖ THỊ KIỀU LAN

AN INVESTIGATION INTO CORRELATION BETWEEN
DISCOURSE MARKERS USAGE FREQUENCY AND
ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING SKILLS BY STUDENTS AT
BUSINESS ENGLISH DEPARTMENT,
NATIONAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY

NGHIÊN CỨU MỐI QUAN HỆ GIỮA SỬ DỤNG DẤU HIỆU
DIỄN NGÔN VÀ KĨ NĂNG VIẾT VĂN LUẬN CỦA SINH VIÊN
TIẾNG ANH THƯƠNG MẠI TRƯƠNG ĐẠI HỌC KINH TẾ
QUỐC DÂN
MA Minor Thesis

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 602215 Hanoi - 2012
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL
STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………… iv
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………… vi

PART A. INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale …………………… ……………………………………… 1
2. Scope of the study ……………………………………………………2
3. Aims and objectives of the study ………………….…………………2
4. Research questions……………………………………………………3
5. Design of the study……………………………………………………3

PART B. DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I. LITERATURE REVIEW
1. English study in Vietnam
1.1. English study in Vietnam and National Economics University…4
1.2. Issues in writing academic arguments………………………… 5
2. Studies related to the topic of the study……………………………….7
3. Definition and background information of terms
3.1. Definition of academic writing and argumentative essay … 11
3.2. Discourse markers…………………………….…………… 12
3.2.1. Definition of discourse markers ……………….………… 12
3.2.2. Properties of discourse markers……………………………16
3.2.2.1. Phonological properties ………………………… 17
3.2.2.2. Morphological properties …………………………17
7

3.2.2.3. Syntactic properties and classification ……………17
3.2.2.4. Semantic properties and classification ………… 19
3.2.3. Types of discourse markers ……………………………….19
3.3. Role of discourse markers in writing……………………… 20
CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY

Table 2: Ratio of number of writing essays of three groups……………….… 27
Table 3: Distribution of discourse markers in all essays……………….…….…27
Table 4: Frequency of use of discourse markers in group 1 essays………… 28
Table 5: Frequency of use of discourse markers in group 2 essays……….… 28
Table 6: Frequency of use of discourse markers in group 3 essays……….……30
Table 7: Frequency and percentage of types of discourse markers
in group 1 essays ……………………………………………………………… 32
Table 8: Frequency and percentage of types of discourse markers
in group 2 essays ……………………………………………………………… 33
Table 9: Frequency and percentage of types of discourse markers
in group 3 essays ……………………………………………………………… 34
Table 10: Frequency of four types of discourse markers in three groups….… 36
Table 11: Percentage of four types of discourse markers in three groups….…….36
1

PART A. INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale

Vietnamese government views English as a vital tool for exchanging knowledge
and doing business. Therefore, a command of English is emphasized, and English is


3. Aims and objectives of the study
3.1. Aims of the study

The study aims at helping students recognize the significance of discourse markers
in writing argumentative essay and then applying them in their writing by providing
them knowledge on types of discourse markers, and functions of each type.

3.2. Objectives of the study

By helping students recognize the importance of discourse markers, the study will
firstly (1) examine the frequency of use of discourse markers in argumentative
essays written by 38 second year students at Business English Department, Faculty
of Foreign Languages, National Economics University. More specifically, it will
seek the average percentage of discourse markers and their types in argumentative
essays. The study, then, (2) discloses the relationship between the frequency of
discourse markers and students‟ writing quality.

3

4. Research questions

In this study the answers to the following research questions were of particular
interest:
1. What is the usage frequency of English discourse markers in students‟
argumentative essays?
2. How does the frequency of use of discourse markers correlate with the
quality of written essays?

To answer these questions, a study employing detailed linguistic analysis will be

achieving English proficiency. Primary students from grade one to five mainly
focus on sets of simple vocabulary and grammar is the first hinder. It is common
knowledge that one teacher may be responsible for teaching many subjects, which
means the teacher of English might not be well-trained in the subject (this is the
reason why Ministry of Education has implemented a teacher‟s level upgrading
programme for primary teachers). In addition, a large class of approximately 40
students is teacher‟s teaching responsibility, which leads to the lack of time for
teacher to provide feedback for every single student.

The next reason is that Vietnamese students study English as a foreign language.
Although English is viewed important for the reasons above, students typically
study other subjects in their national language. The last reasons and perhaps the
most significant reason is that a typical English lesson is Vietnam focuses on
grammar, vocabulary and reading, and tests are often in the form of multiple choice
questions rather than requiring extended writing. Students, therefore, have less
exposure to composing texts.
5

With the background setting as mentioned above, it is natural that numerous
Vietnamese students find it difficult to write essays. What make academic writing in
English specifically difficult for Vietnamese students is that what they pursue their
studying at university, their language demands are twofold they need to improve
their English communicative skills both in speaking and writing. While they are
trying to upgrade their English proficiency, another trouble appears when they have
to distinguish between formal and informal language. In this sense, students need to
move from the more general English taught from primary to high schools to the
much more specialized, academic writing of university level.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that not only are students inexperienced in
composing extended texts in English, they are also not introduced to the genre of
argumentative essays. While English argumentative essay writing is an important

differences in the following writing and learning issues:
- Linguistic proficiencies and intuitions about language;
- Learning experience and classroom expectations;
- Sense of audience and writer;
- Preferences for ways of organizing texts;
- Writing process; and
- Understanding of text uses and the social value of different text types

Over the past four decades, language learners have become increasingly aware the
importance of an appropriate grammatical competence and sociolinguistic
competence in communication. These competences play a significant role in
producing a successful composition. To ensure communication success, it is vital to
achieve sociolinguistic competence (the ability to use language appropriately and
naturally in different contexts). Because of the increase in interest in the formal
teaching of writing and language learners‟ needs to write properly in the target
language, it is required that students are supplied adequate sociolinguistic
competence to employ and function word choice in the most natural way.
7

2. Works related to the topic of the study

Research on discourse markers can be classified into three main categories. The first
group of studies has examined the frequency of discourse markers used in the
students‟ writing. Some of these studies have investigated the use of discourse
markers in one language (L1 or L2) and some others have compared the frequency
of the use of discourse markers between L1 and L2. For instance, Connor (1984)
compared six argumentative essays written by English native and ESL students,
following Halliday and Hasan‟s (1976) framework. No significant difference was
found between native and ESL students in the frequency of the use of DMs.


markers. A direct and positive relationship was also found between the quality of
the compositions and the number of DMs used.

The second group of studies has investigated the nature of discourse markers used
in students‟ writing. Liu and Braine (2005), using Haliday and Hassan‟s taxonomy
of cohesive devices, investigated the use of cohesive devices in 50 argumentative
compositions written by Chinese undergraduate non-English majors. They also
examined the relationship between the number of cohesive devices used and the
quality of writing. Among the sub-categories of conjunction devices, additive
devices accounted for the largest percentage of use, followed by causal, temporal,
and adversative devices. The cohesive items with the highest frequency were „and‟,
„also‟ and „or‟. Among adversative devices, „but‟ was used with the highest
frequency, while „on the contrary‟, and „instead‟ occurred very little in their
writings. Other items such as „as a result‟, and „thus‟ were rarely used.

Hu et al. (1982), using frequency counts, analyzed the use of cohesive ties by 12
Chinese university students in comparison with 12 Australian university students.
The framework used was Halliday‟s functional grammar. They found that Chinese
9

students used more conjunctions and Australian students used more lexical
cohesion.

Using an 8 million-word corpus of fiction, news, and academic spoken and written
English, Bell (2010) examined the contrastive discourse markers of „nevertheless‟,
„still‟ and „yet‟. The results showed that these markers constituted a cline of scope
with „nevertheless‟ having the most limited scope and „yet‟ having the largest
scope. Variability of scope refers to “the extent to which a marker instructs the
hearer/analyst to search the previous discourse or even go beyond the discourse to
search their encyclopedic knowledge for a potential effect” (Bell, 2010, p. 1925).

needs to be investigated particularly in an EFL context.

In an attempt to address the above-mentioned issues, the present study aims at
identifying the use of discourse markers in academic argumentative university
students at Business English Department, National Economics University. The
study, moreover, intends to analyze the effect of using DMs on the quality of
writing. The results of this research will provide readers with insights into the
general pattern of discourse markers use in university EFL learners‟ academic
writing. This would help readers and lecturers who teach Writing identify students‟
problems in using discourse markers, e.g. overuse or underuse of certain categories
of discourse markers, and, thereby, modify writing teaching procedures and
incorporate a more precise plan for teaching the appropriate use of discourse
markers.

11

3. Definition and background information of terms
3.1. Academic writing and argumentative essay

Graduate students face a variety of writing tasks as they work toward their chosen
degrees. Naturally, these tasks will vary from one degree program to another. They
are, however, similar in two respects. First, the tasks become progressively more
complex and demanding the farther you go in the program. Second (with few
exceptions), they need to be written academically. Then, "academic writing " is one
of those terms that is often invoked, usually solemnly, as if everyone agreed on its
meaning, and so is used imprecisely yet almost always for what the user regards as
a precise purpose; e.g., commonly by teachers in explaining what they want from
students.

According to Thaiss, Chris, and Terry Zawacki in their book Engaged Writers,

DISCOURSE OPERATORS (Redeker 1991), and CUE PHRASES (Knott 2000;
Knott and Sanders 1997; Sanders and Noordman 2000). Other less frequent terms
include discourse particles, discourse signaling devices, indicating devices,
pragmatic connectives, pragmatic expressions, pragmatic particles and sentence
connectives.

Regarding the theoretical status of discourse markers, I would like to focus on
discourse markers definition, their meanings and their functions. To do this, the
writer will review two outstanding research efforts that have been of huge impact in
the field of discourse analysis. The first approach is the work undergone by
Schiffrin (1987), who studied elements, which mark “sequentially-dependent units
of discourse”. The second perspective is the one defined by Fraser (1999), who
approached discourse markers from a grammatical-pragmatic perspective.
In her book Discourse Markers, Schiffrin was concerned with the ways in which
DM function to “add to discourse coherence” (1987:326). Schiffrin maintains that
13

coherence is constructed through relations between adjacent units in discourse
(1987:24). She basically sees DM as serving an integrative function in discourse
and therefore, contributing to discourse coherence. She also points out the different
nature of DMs, while some DMs relate only the semantic reality (the facts) of the
two clauses, others, including so, may relate clauses on a logical level and/or speech
act level.

In Schiffrin‟s (1987) view, DMs have semantic and pragmatic meaning. This idea
fifers from Chaudron and Richard‟s (1986) definition of DM, who argue that Dms
simply indicate problems of on-line discourse production, that is, they act as filled
pauses in order to give the speaker time to organize his or her thoughts, and to give
the listener time to process the spoken signal. However, Chaudron and Richard‟s
(1986) do not attribute DMs signposting relations between parts of the discourse.


The third approach and is the one that the present builds upon: Fraser‟s DMs
definition and taxonomy of DMs categories. This perspective analyses and studies
DMs from a grammatical-pragmatic aspect. He characterized DMs as linguistic
expressions. According to Fraser (1999:936) this linguistic expression or DM:

(i) has core meaning which can be enriched by the context
(ii) signals the relationship that the speaker intends between the utterance the
DM introduces and the foreign utterance (rather than only bringing up the
relationship, as Schiffrin suggests)

Fraser goes on defining DMs as:

[…] a class of lexical expressions drawn primarily from the syntactic classes of
conjunctions, adverbs, and prepositional phrases. With certain exceptions, they signal a
relationship between the interpretation of the segment they introduce, S2 and the prior
segment, S1 (1999:937).
15 Fraser agrees with Schiffrin saying that DMs have a “core meaning”, and he adds at
this point that their meaning is procedural and not conceptual. He classifies two
types of DMs: “those that relate the explicit interpretation conveyed by S2 with
some aspect associated with the segment, S1; and those that relate the topic of S2 to
that of S1.”

In a recent publication, Fraser describes the form for a DM sequence, that is, S1 -
DM + S2, where the S1 and S2 are discourse segments consisting of clauses, or the
remain of clauses from which portions have been elided. In this article he defines a
DM as:

relationship. DM marks a relationship between S1 and S2 which the speaker of S2
intends the hearer to recognize.

To summarize, the present study builds upon Fraser‟s (1999) taxonomy of DMs
categories. This taxonomy, as compared to the similar taxonomies of DMs, is
mainly used for the classification of written discourse and seems to be the most
comprehensive classification in written discourse.

3.2.2. Properties of discourse markers
Based on his earlier research, Fraser (2005) discusses the phonological,
morphological, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic properties of these units.

17

3.2.2.1. Phonological properties
There do not seem to be any strong generalizations about the phonology associated
with DMs. They are not normally unstressed but they may be, especially when the
DM is monosyllabic, for example, but, so, and and, and, where the sequence
consists of one sentence: S1+DM+S2 such as (12a) above. When the DM is in
initial position, as in (16)
a. Child: There was a big puddle.
Parent: So- you had to jump right in?
b. A: John is at home
B: But- I just saw him at the mall

3.2.2.2. Morphological properties
While many DM are monosyllabic (namely but, so, and), there are those which are
polysyllabic (such as furthermore, consequently and before) and other which consist
of an entire phrase (as a consequence; I mean and that is to say).



The following sequences reflects the possible syntactic arrangements of DMs in
sequences.
a. S1, DM+S2.
Coordinate Conjunction: John left late, but he arrived on time.
Subordinate Conjunction: John was sick because he had eaten spoiled fish
b. S1. DM+ S2
Coordinate conjunction: John left late. But he arrived on time.
Adverbial: John left late. However, he arrived on time.
Preposition Phrase: John came late. After all, he‟s the boss.
Preposition: John left late. Despite that, he arrived on time.
c. DM+S1, S2
Preposition: Despite the fact that John left late, he arrived on time.

19

3.2.2.4. Semantic properties and classification
There are four basic semantic relationship reflected in their use, with sub-
classification within each of these basis relations.
a. CONTRASTIVE MARKERS (CDMs) but, alternatively, although,
contrariwise, contrary to expectations, conversely, despite (this/that),
even so, however, in spite of (this/that), in comparison (with this/that), in
contrast (to this/that), instead (of this/that), nevertheless, nonetheless,
(this/that point), notwithstanding, on the other hand, on the contrary,
rather (than this/that), regardless (of this/that), still, though, whereas, yet
…
b. ELABORATIVE MARKERS (EDMs) and, above all, also, alternatively,
analogously, besides, by the same token, correspondingly, equally, for
example, for instance, further(more), in addition, in other words, in
particular, likewise, more accurately, more importantly, more precisely,

conclusion, as a consequence (of this/that), as a result (of this/that), because
(of this/that), consequently, for this/that reason, hence, it follows that,
accordingly, in this/that/any case, on this/that condition, on these/those
grounds, then, therefore, thus
d. TEMPORAL MARKERS (TDMs) then, after, as soon as, before, eventually,
finally, first, immediately afterwards, meantime, meanwhile, originally,
second, subsequently, when

3.3. Role of discourse markers in writing

Discourse markers are linking words and phrases which establish the logical
relationship between ideas within a sentence or between sentences. They also
improve the flow and coherence of writing that is a smooth movement from one
idea or piece of information in a text to the next. Discourse markers are, thus,
guideposts for readers that help them to better follow the text, promote written
communication, and reader‟s comprehension of coherent discourse.