2 authors: Eman Awni Ali University of Jordan 7

Methodology

1. 
   Subjects
   

The subjects of the study are divided into two groups. The first group is advanced EFL learners and they are represented by forty graduate students in the Department of English Language and Literature at the University of Jordan. Specifically, the subjects are enrolled in the master’s degree programs of English linguistics, English literature and translation. The administration of these students requires that they score high in one of the graduate admission tests which assess the English language-proficiency of students whose native language is not English. Consequently, all the subjects who are classified as advanced EFL learners have obtained a TOFEL® ITP score of 550 or more out of 660 or a National English Test score of 75 or more out of 100. The two tests aim at evaluating students' proficiency level in reading, listening and writing skills.
The other group of subjects is intermediate EFL learners and they are represented by eighty-seven students who failed the university entrance exam. The university entrance exam consists of questions that assess students’ proficiency level in the skills of reading, speaking and listening. These students are enrolled in English 99 courses at the University of Jordan.

The total number of students who are enrolled in the master’s degree program in the first semester of the academic year 2013/2014 is one hundred and fourteen. Forty subjects are randomly selected from the one hundred and fourteen graduate students. The sample of the advanced EFL learners presents around 35% of the population from which it is drawn. On the other hand, the eighty-seven intermediate EFL learners represent around 5% of the one thousand seven hundred and thirty students who are enrolled in the English 99 course. Selecting different sample sizes might be justified by the fact that the population size of the graduate students is too small in comparison with the population of the English 99 students. Thus, it is difficult to select the same sample sizes or even percentages of representations of each population.

2. 
   Data collection
   

Wiring essays is the instrument for data collection in the present study. The subjects are asked to write expository essays in which they discuss and suggest solutions for three problems they face at the University of Jordan. Following Asassfeh, et al., (2013, p.21), three topics are presented to two English professors to ensure “the appropriateness of the prompt for the participants and the study purpose.” The selection of this topic is based on the assumption that it is familiar to the subjects. The subjects are asked to write the essays during regular classroom sessions with the attendance of their instructors.
4.3 Model of analysis
This study relies on Fraser’s (2009) taxonomy to represent the targeted DMs. This choice is based on the assumption that Fraser's taxonomy "conforms to written discourse and it seems to be the most comprehensive classification in written discourse" (Jalilifar, 2008, p.115). Fraser (2009) distinguishes three functional classes of discourse markers.
A- Contrastive discourse 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 …) (Fraser, 2009, p.8)
B- Elaborative discourse markers (EDMs)
(and , above all, after 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, more to the point, moreover, on that basis, on top of it all, or, otherwise, rather, similarly , that is to say) (Fraser, 2009, p.9)
C- Inferential discourse markers (IDMs)
(so , all things considered, as a 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) (Fraser, 2009, p.9)
Fraser (2005) considered the temporal class of pragmatic markers as a subclass of DMs and then in Fraser (2009) excluded this class and justified this exclusion by the claim that DMs only reflect semantic relationships between discourse segments. However, it should be pointed out that DMs do not exclusively reflect semantic relationships between discourse segments; rather, these markers can also display discourse relations. Hence, Fraser's (2005) temporal class of DMs is included in this study.
D-Temporal discourse markers (TDMs)
(then, after, as soon as, before, eventually, finally, first, immediately afterwards, meantime, meanwhile, originally, second, subsequently, when) (Fraser, 2005, p.197)
Moreover, Fung’s (2003) category of interpersonal DMs represents the class of Spoken DMs in the present study. The spoken class of DMs is useful in marking shared knowledge between the participants and marking the attitude of the participants towards the propositional content of discourse segments. This class of DMs is typically used in spoken rather than in written discourse.
F- Spoken discourse markers (SDMs)


(See, you see, you know, listen. well, really, I think, obviously, absolutely, basically, actually, exactly, sort of, kind of, like, to be frank, to be honest, oh, OK, okay, right, alright, yeah, yes, I see, great, oh great, sure) (Fung, 2003, p.84)
4.4. Data analysis
The subjects' use of DMs is judged based on six criteria. The first is the frequency of the use of DMs. Accordingly, the number of words used in each essay is counted manually to find out the ratio of DM use. The second criterion is the functions that DMs serve in expository essays. Each DM is assigned to one of the five functional categories that are investigated in the study. It should be indicated that there are instances of DMs which are not classified as members of the proposed functional categories. These markers are found to perform functions similar to the members of the proposed categories and thus they are analyzed in this part of the study. The third criterion is the variety of the use of DMs. DM occurrences of each functional category are analyzed to find out if the intermediate and advanced students use restricted or varied sets of DMs in written discourse.
The fourth is the syntactic categories from which DMs are drawn.
Following Fraser (2005), each DM is to be identified as a member of five syntactic categories: coordinate conjunctions; subordinate conjunctions; prepositions; prepositional phrases; adverbials. However, two syntactic categories are not identified as sources of DMs by Fraser (2005), .i.e. clauses and interjections, are considered as sources of DMs in the present study. The reason behind Fraser’s exclusion of the DMs that are drawn from the latter categories is that they do not convey a semantic relationship between the discourse segments they connect. These markers constitute the spoken category of DMs which serves a phatic role in the discourse “to facilitate closeness between participants” (Fung, 2003, p.77). As a result, instances of the employment of this category in academic essays are considered pragmatically inappropriate. Assessing the subjects’ awareness of the stylistic peculiarities of DMs which is represented by frequent instances of spoken DMs in academic essays is the fifth criterion for evaluating the subjects’ use of these markers.
The last criterion is the position that DMs occupies in sentences and in discourse segments. A set of words are to meet two conditions to be considered a sentence. The first is to include a subject and a predicate. The second condition is to end with a full stop, question mark, or exclamation mark. Discourse markers might occur in sentence initial, medial or final position.

5.