particles in an intercultural corpus of spoken English. Unpublished PhD thesis, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
Martinez, A. (2004). Discourse markers in the expository writing of Spanish university students . IBÉRICA, 8, 63-80.
Maschler, Y. (1994). Mitigating and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society, 23, 325- 366.
Muller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Rahimi, M. (2011). Discourse markers in argumentative and expository writing of Iranian EFL learners. World
Journal of English Language, 1, 68-78.
Redeker, G. (1991). Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics, 29, 1139-1172. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP.
Šimčikaitė, A. (2012). Spoken discourse markers in learner academic writing. KALBŲ STUDIJOS, 20, 27-34. Unaldi, I. (2013). Overuse of discourse markers in Turkish English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’
writings: The case of ‘I think’ and ‘in my opinion’. Anthropologist, 16(3): 575-584.
Table 1: The frequency of DM occurrences in expository writing
Level
|
Percent
|
Advanced
|
50.9%
|
Intermediate
|
49.1%
|
Table 2: The frequency of the functional classes of DMs
|
Advanced
|
Intermediate
|
Total
|
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
Elaborative
|
40.60
|
53.90
|
47.1
|
Inferential
|
18.90
|
16.70
|
17.8
|
Temporal
|
14.70
|
11.00
|
12.9
|
Contrastive
|
16.10
|
6.00
|
11.1
|
Spoken
|
9.70
|
12.40
|
11.0
|
Table 3: The frequency of the elaborative markers
|
Advanced
|
Intermediate
|
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
Also
|
9.10
|
4.90
|
And
|
62.50
|
89.80
|
as well as
|
2.30
|
0.00
|
Besides
|
1.10
|
0.00
|
for example
|
11.40
|
1.30
|
Furthermore
|
2.30
|
0.00
|
in addition
|
1.10
|
0.90
|
in addition to
|
2.30
|
0.90
|
in other words
|
1.10
|
0.00
|
Moreover
|
6.80
|
0.90
|
Or
|
0.00
|
1.30
|
Table 4: The frequency of the temporal markers
|
Advanced
|
Intermediate
|
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
Eventually
|
3.10
|
0.00
|
Finally
|
21.90
|
15.20
|
First
|
15.60
|
2.20
|
first of all
|
6.20
|
0.00
|
Firstly
|
3.10
|
13.00
|
in the end
|
0.00
|
8.70
|
Now
|
3.10
|
0.00
|
Second
|
12.50
|
8.70
|
Secondly
|
15.60
|
28.30
|
Then
|
3.10
|
8.70
|
Third
|
3.10
|
2.20
|
Thirdly
|
6.20
|
13.00
|
When
|
6.20
|
0.00
|
Table.5: The frequency of the inferential markers
|
Advanced
|
Intermediate
|
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
as a conclusion
|
2.40
|
0.00
|
Because
|
29.30
|
61.40
|
because of
|
7.30
|
2.90
|
Consequently
|
4.90
|
0.00
|
in conclusion
|
2.40
|
0.00
|
in this case
|
2.40
|
0.00
|
Since
|
7.30
|
0.00
|
So
|
17.10
|
34.30
|
so that
|
14.60
|
1.40
|
Then
|
2.40
|
0.00
|
Therefore
|
7.30
|
0.00
|
Thus
|
2.40
|
0.00
|
Table 6: The frequency of the contrastive markers
|
Advanced
|
Intermediate
|
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
Although
|
2.90
|
0.00
|
But
|
31.40
|
92.00
|
Despite
|
5.70
|
0.00
|
despite of
|
2.90
|
0.00
|
even though
|
2.90
|
0.00
|
However
|
20.00
|
0.00
|
instead of
|
17.10
|
0.00
|
Nonetheless
|
2.90
|
0.00
|
on the other hand
|
0.00
|
4.00
|
Rather
|
2.90
|
0.00
|
Still
|
2.90
|
0.00
|
Though
|
2.90
|
0.00
|
While
|
5.70
|
4.00
|
Table 7: The frequency of the spoken markers
|
Advanced
|
Intermediate
|
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
Actually
|
14.30
|
0.00
|
from my aspect
|
4.80
|
0.00
|
from my point of view
|
14.30
|
0.00
|
I think
|
28.60
|
36.50
|
in my opinion
|
9.50
|
44.20
|
in my point of view
|
0.00
|
1.90
|
Indeed
|
4.80
|
0.00
|
it is my view
|
0.00
|
3.80
|
Just
|
0.00
|
1.90
|
let's start
|
4.80
|
0.00
|
Like
|
9.50
|
0.00
|
of course
|
4.80
|
0.00
|
Oh
|
0.00
|
3.80
|
Well
|
4.80
|
7.70
|
Table 8: The frequency of the syntactic categories of DMs
|
Advanced
|
Intermediate
|
Total
|
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
Coordinate conjunctions
|
30.40
|
54.70
|
42.3
|
Subordinate conjunctions
|
16.10
|
16.50
|
16.3
|
Adverbials
|
32.30
|
13.40
|
23.0
|
Interjections
|
0.50
|
1.40
|
0.9
|
Clauses
|
3.20
|
5.00
|
4.1
|
Prepositions
|
1.80
|
0.00
|
0.9
|
Prepositional phrases
|
15.70
|
9.10
|
12.4
|
Table 9: The frequency of the sentence positions of DMs
|
Advanced
|
Intermediate
|
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
Initial
|
40.10
|
28.90
|
Medial
|
59.90
|
71.10
|
Table 10: The association between the sentence positions and the syntactic categories of DMs
|
Sentence-initially
|
Sentence-medially
|
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
Coordinate conjunction
|
7.10
|
60.90
|
Subordinate conjunction
|
9.50
|
19.90
|
Adverbial
|
52.90
|
7.20
|
Interjections
|
2.70
|
0.00
|
Clause
|
7.10
|
2.50
|
Preposition
|
1.40
|
0.70
|
Prepositional phrase
|
19.30
|
8.80
|
Table 11: The association between the sentence positions and the functional categories of DMs
|
Sentence-initially
|
Sentence-medially
|
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
Elaborative
|
25.10
|
58.80
|
Inferential
|
11.50
|
21.10
|
Temporal
|
33.20
|
2.20
|
Contrastive
|
11.90
|
10.80
|
Spoken
|
18.30
|
7.20
|
35
View publication stats
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
