Article Citation: Ibrahim Sani & Muhammad Ango Aliero (2020). Discursive Strategies of ESL Academic Writing of Umaru Musa Yar’adua University, Katsina. DEGEL: The Journal of the Faculty of Arts and Islamic Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1. ISSN 0794-9316
DISCURSIVE
STRATEGIES OF ESL ACADEMIC WRITING OF UMARU MUSA YAR’ADUA UNIVERSITY, KATSINA
By
Ibrahim Sani &
Muhammad Ango Aliero
Abstract
This qualitative research investigates
how discourse markers as part of discursive strategies are used and the
functions they serve in textual communication especially in the undergraduate
students’ academic writing in the Nigerian educational context. The study
obtained its data from 300 level undergraduate students from the department of
English, Umaru Musa Yar’adua University Katsina-Nigeria. The data was drawn
from the students’ answer booklets in a syntax course, (ENG 3315) during the
first semester, 2018/2019 session. Eighty three students registered and sat for
the examination. The findings of this study indicate that students who harness
discourse markers to serve different communicative functions in their writing appear
to be more promising and expressive in their argument and compose more original
and qualitative text better than those who rarely employ the discourse markers.
In addition, further studies should explore more on discourse markers and aim
at tracing patterns of interaction and to discuss different aspects of language
use.
Introduction
Textual communication is a new and interesting field of
inquiry which is believed to play a vital role in organising and producing a
persuasive writing especially in academic writing, based on the norms and
expectations of people involved in the setting. Textual communication embodies
the idea that writing and speaking are more than just the communication of
ideas and representation of ideational meaning. They are rather considered as
social acts which involve writers, readers, speakers and listeners to interact
with each other to effects the way ideas presented and understood (Schourup,
1999). Discourse markers are therefore believed to constitute an important
feature of textual communication, which attract considerable research attention
over the years. Discourse markers are essential features of a text, where
audience need to assess the readers’ or listeners’ resources for understanding
the text, and their likely responses to it in order to be able to write or to
speak effectively
Discourse markers constitute a significant feature of
textual communication, which is widely used term in current discourse analysis
and is a relatively new approach that refers to the ways writers or speakers
project themselves in their texts to interact with their receivers. It is a
concept which is based on a view of writing or speaking as a social engagement.
It is therefore, believed to play an important role in organising the
discourse, engaging the audience and signalling the writer’s or speakers’ attitude.
As a result it has been taken up and used by researchers to trace patterns of
interaction and to discuss different aspects of language use. The social
perspectives that discourse markers have significant implications for language
classes, and language teachers are gradually becoming aware of its
significance.
Conceptual Review
Basically, scholars explore discourse markers from different
perspectives, such as their functions, nature, and structure and so on. The
review looks into these aspects of discourse markers as concepts related to the
discourse markers as highlighted under the section called conceptual review
Discourse markers (DMs)
Despite the quantity of research in the area of discourse
markers by various scholars on the meaning and functions of DMs of individual
or sets of DMs in various languages (e.g. Dergisi, 2010; Zarei, 2013,
Nejadansari & Mohammadi, 2015 etc.), no consensus has been reached
regarding the terminology and classification of DMs. There is no consensus
among linguists as to what DMs are and their number in English (Blakemore,
2006). Even the term Discourse Marker is in dispute with researchers using
various words and phrases to refer to this phenomenon in a variety of
languages.
Schourup (1999) points out that by the year 1996, there were
already more than twenty such terms in circulation. Brinton (1996), for
instance, lists some of these terms as follows: discourse lubricants, conversational greasers, discourse glue,
traffic markers, fillers, fumble, gambit, clue words, minstrel tags and mystery particles. Camiciotolli (2010)
uses the term discourse connectives
and states a range of available terms such as discourse markers (Schiffrin, 1987; Jucker, 1998; Fraser, 2006), pragmatic markers (Brinton, 1996;
Andersen, 2006), adverbial connectors
(Altenberg, 2006), Discourse Markers
(Fischer, 2006) etc.
Schourup (1999) further argues that the term DM is merely
the most popularly used among scholars followed by the term DP which was
predominant until the mid 1980s. He maintains that DM has a narrower range of
reference and has been easy to define while the term DP has a potential of
being confused with other syntactic terms such as utterance particle, final particle,
conversational particle, sentence particle, etc. which have grammatical
status on a particular set of items. Blakemore (2006) concludes that the term
‘discourse’ is intended to underline the fact that their role must be described
at discourse level rather than sentence level, while the term ‘marker’ denotes
that their meaning must be analysed in terms of what they indicate rather than
what they describe.
Scholars in the field of DMs are diverse in suggesting the
term to be used and also regarding the definition of DMs. This clearly shows
that there is no single universally accepted corpus that lists the whole DMs in
a given language, but some researchers tried to mention a few based on some
characteristics. The following definitions will serve as a foundation in
describing and identifying DMs in English. Levinson, Brown, Levinson, & Levinson (1987) in Barnabas & Adamu (2012) opine that discourse markers
are important features of both formal and informal native speaker language. The
skilful use of DMs often indicates a higher level of fluency and ability to
produce and understand authentic language. In a similar vein, Litman (1996) as
cited by Barnabas & Adamu (2012) argues that discourse markers are
linguistic devices available for a writer to structure a discourse.
Gerard (2010) defines discourse markers as words like ‘however’,
‘although’, and ‘nevertheless’ which are referred to more
commonly as ‘linking words’ and ‘linking phrases’, or ‘sentence connectors’.
They may be described as the ‘glue’ that binds together a piece of writing,
making the different parts of the text ‘stick together’. Without sufficient
discourse markers in a piece of writing, a text would not seem logically
constructed and the connections between the different sentences and paragraphs
would not be obvious. This definition concentrates more on the cohesive
functions of DMs rather than their pragmatic roles.
In practical English usage, Swan (2005) defines a ‘discourse marker as ‘a word or expression which
shows the connection between what is being said and the wider context’. For
him, a discourse marker is something that either connects a sentence to what
comes before or after, or indicates a speaker’s attitude to what he is saying.
He illustrates his point by giving three examples: on the other hand; frankly;
as a matter of fact.
Functions of Discourse Markers
Discourse markers constitute a significant research area in
the realm of textual communication. The review aims at contextualising this
current study in literature. Many aspects of discourse markers have been
researched. In terms of their communicative functions, (Dülger, 2007) outlines fifteen functions of discourse markers as given in
table 1 below:
Table 1: Fifteen functions of discourse
markers (Dülger,
2007).
|
1. |
Focusing And Listing: With reference to,
with regard to |
|
2. |
Contrast:
which is divided into: (a) direct contrast: However, Nevertheless, In contrast; (b) Concession And Counter
Argument: However, Of course (c) Contrasting: On the contrary (d) Balancing Contrasting Points: While, On the other hand (e) Dismissal
of Previous Discourse: Anyway, At least |
|
3. |
Similarity: Likewise,
In the same way |
|
4. |
Change of Subject: By the way, O.K,
Incidentally |
|
5. |
Structuring:
First(ly), Finally, Lastly |
|
6 |
Adding: In addition, Moreover, Another thing |
|
7. |
Generalizing:
In general, In some cases, On the whole |
|
8. |
Exemplification: For instance, For
example, In particular |
|
9. |
Logical Consequence: Therefore, Hence,
Thus |
|
10. |
Making Things Clear/Softening and Correcting: In
other words, Actually, Well |
|
11. |
Gaining Time:
Well, I mean, You know |
|
12. |
Showing Ones’ Attitude to What One Is Saying: No
doubt, Frankly, Honestly |
|
13. |
Persuading:
No doubt, After all, Look |
|
14. |
Referring to Other Person’s Expectations: Actually,
To tell the truth, In fact |
|
15. |
Summing Up:
In conclusion, In summary, To sum up |
Empirical Review
Many researchers have shown a considerable interest in the
communicative functions of discourse markers. This section looks into empirical
studies conducted on discourse markers. There are many considerable studies
conducted in this area that indicate how pertinent the field of textual
communication is to language researchers. For instance, Peacock (2010) compares the use of linking adverbials {which overlap to
great extent with Hyland's (2004) transitional markers} in 320 research articles across eight
disciplines divided into sciences and non-sciences. The results showed a clear
tendency for the science discipline to use fewer linking adverbials than the
non-science discipline.
With regards to the relationship between discourse markers
and writing, Dülger (2007) studies discourse markers in writing. He claims that
students, who use appropriate discourse markers in their writing, attain a high
mark of writing skill. He further argues that discourse markers constitute an
indispensable writing quality. Similarly, Fox Tree (2015) also explores discourse markers in writing. The author
expounds that there are increasing opportunities to observe in using discourse
markers in students’ writing. In her study, Lahuerta Martínez (2004) examines discourse markers in the expository of Spanish
University students. She claims that for a learner to attain communicative
competence, he must use discourse markers appropriately
In his studies, (Jalilifar, 2008) examines discourse markers on composition writing, where he
used Iranian learners of English as a case study. He found that there is a
direct and positive relationship between the quality of the composition and the
number of well-functioned discourse makers. He also indicated that graduate
students used discourse markers and this led to more cohesive texts. In another
study, Rahimi (2011) explores discourse markers in argumentative and
extraordinary writing of Iranian EFL writing. The aim of his study was to
investigate the frequency and types of discourse markers used in the academic
writing of Iranian students. He found out that the use of discourse markers was
significantly higher in argumentative essays than expository.
In another dimension, Li (2010) examines discourse markers in English writing. The author
argues that discourse markers contribute significantly to the discourse’s
cohesion and coherence.
These studies have been reviewed to contextualise the
current study into existing body of literature on discourse markers and to
create the gap, so as to contribute in filling in the gap in literature as
contribution to knowledge. Bearing this in mind, there is a paucity of research
on the discursive strategies of ESL learners of English especially in the
Nigerian context. Therefore, this study unfolds the discursive strategies of
ESL students’ academic writing to find out how they harness discourse markers
in their academic writing. The paper uses a framework of analysis to provide
theoretical underpinning to the study.
Academic writing
Writing is one of the basic language skills that has been
with us for thousands of years, and it is nowadays more important than ever. It
is not surprising that humanity relies on writing to an unprecedented extent
and as a result, more communication takes place in written than in oral mode.
Writing therefore affects almost all aspects of modern life ranging from
written records to books, data banks, etc. Writing not only paves ways of
reclaiming the past but also is a critical skill for shaping the future.
Academic writing is often referred to as scholarly writing
or scholarly communication, which is a crucial component of research and
researchers. Academic writing is aimed at informed audience, which are mainly
lecturers and academics at universities and research institution. In this kind
of writing, students need critical thinking skills and a basic understanding of
the conventions of the writing and also the research process in order to meet
the requirements of academic writing.
Among the four language skills namely: Reading, listening,
writing and speaking, writing is seen as the most complex skill because it
involves the articulation of thoughts and ideas into written or printed media.
It requires critical thinking, reflection, and practice. The articulation of
thoughts to express ideas is seen as the communicative function of writing.
Writing is widely used in all academic fields and in informal settings like
social media. It is no doubt that writing in the social media plays a significant
role in Nigeria’s politics as it has great influence on Nigerian social media
users.
In the context of students of Umaru Musa Yaradua, Katsina,
especially in the department of English, where students are expected to show
familiarity with mechanics of writing, such as cohesion, signposting and
signalling, students show little familiarity with cohesive devices, where only
few students use discourse markers in their writing as reported in this study.
Therefore, there is the need for more orientation to students to grasp good
conventions of academic writing. This will enhance their writing skill, which
is the hallmark of academic excellence.
Theoretical
framework
This study is based on Systematic Functional Linguistics
(SFL) of Halliday (1994) in (Gerot & Wignell, 1994) and (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004) which describes and interprets sense-making and strategic
views of language. Generally, SFL aims to show the potential meaning that a
speaker conveys through Lexico grammar. Halliday {1994} believes that users of
any language intentionally selected their intended meanings in order to reach
their communicative aims. So it is important to investigate how individuals
make meanings or communicate by the help of language in their social
activities.
According to systemic functional linguistics views, textual
meaning {or mode of discourse} is the symbolic organisation of language which
refers to what it is that the participants are expecting the language to do for
them in the situation or the function of the text in the context, alongside it
is symbolic organisation (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). Textual analysis
{or mode of discourse} depends on investigation of Lexico grammatical choices
in order to find thematic and cohesive structures of the texts. Based on SFL
the presence study focuses on discourse markers strategies employed in ESL
students’ academic writing.
Methodology
This descriptive study obtained its data from 300 level
undergraduate students from the Department of English, Umaru Musa Yar’adua
University, Katsina. The data was drawn from the students’ answer booklets in a
syntax course, (ENG3315) during the first semester, 2018/2019 session.
Eighty-nine (N=89) students sat for the examination. Hence, all the booklets
(89) were collected for the analysis. The range of fifty marks (that is grade C
and above) were sorted out to arrive at a rigorous analysis, out of which
twenty-five booklets are within this range (that is 50 marks and above). The
booklets were then explored in order to find out the discursive strategies
employed by the students in their academic writing. Furthermore, the frequency
distribution of each discourse marker was indicated as shown in the findings of
the study
Findings and discussion
Table 2 below shows the number of discourse markers used by
the students in academic writing, and the number of times upon which they use
the discourse markers (that is frequency distribution).
Table
2: Discourse markers and their frequency distribution
|
The table indicates that out of 25 selected booklets from
the total sample of 89 booklets, only seventeen students were able to use
discourse markers in their writing as found out by the researchers from the
analysis of the booklets. The frequency of distribution indicates the number of
times a particular discourse marker was used. For example, 1 in the frequency
distribution indicates that only once a particular discourse marker was used in
the entire booklets. Similarly, 2 indicates that the candidate used a given
discourse marker twice in the booklet. In the same vein, 4 in the frequency
distribution indicates that a given discourse marker was used four times.
The most frequent discourse marker is ‘another’,
having four (4) as the highest number in the frequency of distribution
comprising 17.4%. This discourse marker was used to serve the communicative
function of adding additional information in the writing as outlined by (Dülger, 2007). Similarly, ‘also, however and therefore’ immediately followed as the
second to the highest frequency of distribution of two for each of the three
discourse markers, comprising 8.7%. Here three different discourse markers
serving different communicative functions were used. For instance ‘also’ was
used by the students to present logical reasoning in their writing; while
‘however’ was used to change the subject of discussion; and ‘in conclusion’ was
used to indicate the summing up of an argument in the writing.
The remaining discourse markers that featured in the
students’ booklets were used once only throughout the writing. Each comprises
one (1) as the frequency of distribution, having 4.3%. For example, ‘on the
other hand’, was used to serve the communicative function of contrast,
‘firstly, finally and lastly’ were used to serve the communicative function of
structuring information or argument in the students’ writing. ‘According to’
was also used as a discourse marker to focus more at a point in the students’ writing.
‘One important’ is another discourse marker, which was used to provide clarity
and certainty in the writing. Finally, discourse markers: ‘in conclusion, in
summary, and in sum’, were all used by the students to conclude a point or an
argument.
Basically, the findings of this study indicate that students
who harness discourse markers to serve different communicative functions in
their writing appear to be more promising and expressive in their argument and
compose more original and qualitative text better than those who rarely employ
the discourse markers. Thus, the findings of this study resonate with that of (Jalilifar, 2008), who claims that that there is a direct and positive
relationship between the quality of the composition and the number of
well-functioned discourse makers.
The researchers limited their collection of data from the
discourse markers employed by the students under study in the aforementioned
course in order to ascertain their actual usage of the discourse markers in
their writing especially in the academic context. Given the nature of
qualitative paradigm that unravels social phenomenon in real situation, the
data clearly depicts how students are so inexpressive in their writing. This
inexpressive nature of students writing characterised by inadequate use of discourse
markers that enhance smooth flow of meaning and expressiveness in discourse
(both written and spoken) inspired the researchers to carry out the research
after thoroughly marking the scripts to award them grades to compute their
semester result in the session under study. The aim is to evaluate the level at
which students use discourse markers as part of important writing strategies to
determine their expressive power in academic writing.
Out of the total scripts (N=89), only the selected scripts
(25) with ‘C’ grade and above were the scripts of those students, who were able
to use discourse markers in their writing even though grossly inadequate as
presented in the analysis. The remaining scripts (64) with ‘D’ grade and below
were those who did not completely use discourse marker in their writing. This
justifies the selection of better grades to obtain raw data for this research.
It is obvious that the lack of adequate use of discourse
markers by the students impede their ability to use connectives in their
writing strategies, such as signposting, signalling, contrasting, hedging and
so forth. It can be argued that from this study that adequate use of discourse
markers to some extent determines writing quality.
Implication for Further Research
Clarity of any written text depends on proper use of good
grammatical expressions, choice of suitable lexicon and appropriate discourse
markers which involve the use of cohesive devices to tie together the
grammatical constructions in order to have a single concept and to carry along
the reader. This makes writing to be the most complex skill among other
language skills. For this reason, there is a large amount of literature
describing what writing is, the nature of writing, the importance or purpose of
writing and different approaches to the development of writing skill. Almost
every written work in Applied Linguistics on the development of writing skill
goes along with a section relating to a theoretical background of writing skill
development. Therefore, there is the need for language teachers, instructors
and curriculum developers to give more emphasis on courses, such as creative
writing, composition and other related courses that are geared towards
improving writing especially in academic setting, where students will be
exposed to different discourses markers and their different communicative
functions in both spoken and written contexts, but with additional emphasis for
written discourse.
Further research should examine the relationship or
correlation of discourse markers with writing quality to empirically establish
whether the use of discourse markers could be directly associated with high
quality writing.
Conclusion
This study explored the discursive strategies of ESL
undergraduate students’ academic writing to portray the role of discourse
markers in textual communication, especially in academic writing. The study
provides additional insight on the potentialities of using discourse markers to
enrich textual communication and improve students’ quality of writing by
highlighting the importance of discourse markers as catalysts of achieving
coherence, smooth flow of arguments or massages and quality in students’
academic writing. Discourse markers constitute a significant feature of textual
communication, which is a widely used term in current discourse analysis and is
a relatively new approach that refers to the ways writers or speakers project
themselves in their texts to interact with their receivers. It is a concept
which is based on a view of writing or speaking as a social engagement. It is
therefore, believed to play an important role in organising the discourse,
engaging the audience and signalling the writer’s or speakers’ attitude. As a
result it has been taken up and used by researchers to trace patterns of
interaction and to discuss different aspects of language use. From the social
perspectives, discourse markers have significant implications for language
classes, and language teachers are gradually becoming aware of its
significance.
References
Altenberg, B. (2006). The Function of
Adverbial Connectors in Second Initial Position In English and Swedish. Pragmatic
Markers in Contrast (Studies in Pragmatics, Volume 2), 11–37.
Anderson, G. (2006). Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic
Variation: A Relevance Theoretical
Approach to the Language of Adolescents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Press
Co.
Barnabas, J. & Adamu, M. (2012).
Discourse Markers in Nigerian Television News Broadcast. British Journal of
Humanities and Social Sciences. 8 (1), 1-13.
Blakemore, D. (2006). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: A Semantic
and Pragmatic of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, L.J. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English:
Grammaticalisation and Discourse Functions.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Camiciottoli, B.C. (2010). Discourse
Connectives in Genres of Financial Disclosure: Earnings Presentations vs.
Earnings Releases. Journal of Pragmatics.
42, 650-663.
Dergisi, U.S.A. (2010). Discourse
Markers in English Writing. The Journal
of International Social Research.
3 (11), 300-305.
Dülger, O. (2007). Discourse markers in writing. Selçuk
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (18), 257–270.
Fischer, K. (2006). Approaches to Discourse Markers.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fox Tree, J. E. (2015). Discourse
markers in writing. Discourse Studies, 17(1), 64–82.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are Discourse
Markers? Journal of Pragmatics. 31, 931-952.
Gerot, L., & Wignell, P. (1994). Making
sense of functional grammar: An introductory workbook. Queensland: Antipodeans
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction To Functional Grammar
London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen,
C. (2004). An Introduction To Functional
Grammar (3rd Ed.). Edward Arnold. A Member of the Hodder
Headline Group, 338.
Hyland, K. (2004). Patterns of
engagement: Dialogic features and L2 undergraduate writing. Analysing
Academic Writing: Contextualized Frameworks, 5–23.
Jalilifar, A. (2008). Discourse markers
in composition writings: The case of Iranian learners of English as a foreign
language. English Language Teaching, 1(2), 114.
Jucker, A.H. (1993). The Discourse
Marker well: A Relevance-Theoretical
Account. Journal of Pragmatics. 19,
435-452.
Lahuerta Martínez, A. C. (2004).
Discourse markers in the expository writing of Spanish university students. Ibérica,
(8). Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/html/2870/287026422005/
Levinson, P., Brown, P., Levinson, S.
C., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language
usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge university press.
Li, F. (2010). Discourse markers in
English writing. Journal of International Social Research, 3(11).
Retrieved from http://www.sosyalarastirmalar.com/cilt3/sayi11pdf/feng_li.pdf
Litman, D. (1996). Cue Phrase
classification using machine learning. Journal
of Artificial Intelligence Research, 5,53-94.
Nejadansari, D. and Mohammadi, A.M.
(2015). The Frequencies and Factors of Discourse Markers in the Iranian University EFL Classroom Discourse. International Journal of Research in
Language Learning. 4 (2), 3-20.
Peacock, M. (2010). Linking adverbials
in research articles across eight
disciplines.
Ibérica, (20), 9–33.
Rahimi, M. (2011). Discourse markers in
argumentative and expository writing of Iranian EFL learners. World Journal
of English Language, 1(2), 68.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP.
Schourup, L. (1999). Common Discourse Markers in English
Conversations: “like”, “well”, “y’know”.
New York: Garland.
Swan, M. (2005). Practical english
usage. Oxford Univ. Press. Retrieved from
http://cds.cern.ch/record/1545303/files/0194420981_TOC.pdf
Zarei, F. (2013). Discourse Markers in English. International Research Journal of Applied And Basic Sciences. 4 (1), 107-117.
The official website of the DEGEL Jounal is https://www.degeljournal.com
0 Comments