An Analysis of Contrastive Discourse Markers in Students’ Essays

Khairiah Syahabuddin

and Aulia Zikra

Department of English Language Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Ar-Raniry State Islamic

University, Banda Aceh – Indonesia

Researcher of Centre for Area Studies (CfAS) Ar-Raniry State Islamic University (UIN Ar-Raniry), Banda Aceh – Indonesia

Department of English Language Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Ar-Raniry State Islamic

University, Banda Aceh – Indonesia

Keywords: Writing, discourse markers, cohesion, coherence

Abstract: The interest of the theoretical status of discourse markers has been increasing within the past two decades.

The studies of it are focusing on what they are, what they mean, and how they function in many contexts. In

writing, the use of discourse markers is to create the coherence and cohesion in a text which is considered as

the requirement of a good text. It is found that very few studies concerning discourse markers in English

writing were conducted in Indonesian setting especially in Aceh. Aimed to find out how students use

contrastive discourse markers in English writing, the current study was carried to use qualitative approach

focusing on document analysis as the instrument of collecting data. The participants engaged in this study

were 26 students at the Department of English Language Education of UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh. The

result of this study showed that students used variants, misused and overused CDMs. The misuses were

ranging from incorrect position of certain markers, inappropriate punctuation, and the misunderstanding of

the use of markers. The overuse of CDMs was also found by the researcher in students' essays. Based on the

findings, this study provided implications for students, teachers, and researchers.

1 INTRODUCTION

Within the past two decades, the interest of the

theoretical status of discourse markers has been

increasing. The studies of it were focusing on what

they are, what they mean, and what they functions in

many contexts. Some studies have investigated the

roles of discourse markers in upgrading the quality

of the text. The results show that discourse markers

will affect the quality of writing if it is used properly

by writers (Jalilifar, 2008). Discourse markers help

writers increase the quality of writing. It helps

writers in providing clues which make the messages

of a text clearly, succinctly, and easily interpretable.

Basically, to interpret the messages in written

communication is more difficult than spoken one. In

written communication, there are no additional

means of help such as facial expressions or gesture

to ensure that the message is accurately understood

by interlocutor. By using discourse markers, writers

will easily connect the ideas and make it easily

interpreted by readers. As said by Al-Kohlani (2010)

that besides providing the cohesion in connecting-

words in the text, discourse markers is also

important tool in gaining communication in the text.

The use of discourse markers is to create the

coherence and cohesion in a text which is considered

as the requirement of a good text. Feng (2010) says

that a good writing is not only about grammar but

also about cohesive and coherence. Cohesion is the

element in a text which makes connection between

parts of the text. Halliday and Hasan (2014) says

that cohesion is a set of resources that build relations

in discourse above grammatical structures.

Coherence, on the other hand, resides not in the text,

but is rather the outcome of a dialogue between the

text and listener or reader. It helps group sentences

into paragraphs and paragraphs into sections

forming a hierarchical structure to the text. Dewi

(2012) says that the coherence relations combine

Syahabuddin, K. and Zikra, A.

An Analysis of Contrastive Discourse Markers in Students’ Essays.

DOI: 10.5220/0008218500002284

In Proceedings of the 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference (BELTIC 2018) - Developing ELT in the 21st Century, pages 72-77

ISBN: 978-989-758-416-9

different part or unit of text and develop a structure

view of the text (cited in Yunus and Haris, 2014). In

addition, Al-Kohlani (2010) states that the

competency in using discourse markers affects the

coherence in writing especially in advanced level.

In spite of the fact that discourse markers are

important in writing, the use of discourse markers

itself becomes a complicated thing for students in

learning writing. Especially for EFL and ESL

students, it is complicated by issues of proficiency in

the target language, first language literacy, and

differences in culture and rhetorical approach to the

text (Jalilifar, 2008). The lack of sense in building

meaning in a text is a typical phenomenon that is

commonly found in the EFL writing. This is related

to the students’ problems in using discourse markers

which are obvious. It is because they are non-native

writers who have different interpretation and

comprehension of using various discourse markers

in their essays (Rahayu and Cahyono, 2015).

Recently, several studies have been conducted on

how EFL and ESL students truly compose and what

difficulties they face in their own writing. The

results show that one of the writing problems among

English language learners is using discourse markers

in different texts correctly (Shareef, 2015).

Based on the writer experience, one of the types

of discourse markers that make students confused is

contrastive discourse markers. It is difficult to

comprehend and choose appropriate contrastive

discourse markers in order to create a compound or

complex structure of a text in writing. It is difficult

because contrastive discourse markers have the vast

number of items. The interchangeability of it also

becomes the problem which can cause students’

confusions. Some of them would change the

structure of the sentences when they are inserted in

different order. This kind of material becomes more

complicated by the lack of time in learning it. It is

complicated and time-consuming to teach in class. It

is almost impossible for an instructor to show a wide

range of examples to cover all of the contexts in

class time.

The aim of this study is to investigate the use of

contrastive discourse markers by students and what

kinds of contrastive discourse markers are

commonly used by them. The researcher also wants

to know whether there are misused or overused

contrastive discourse markers in their writing.

There are several studies that examined the using

of discourse markers. The first study was “A

Comparison between Thai University Students and

English Speakers Using Contrastive Discourse

Markers” conducted by Sitthirak (2013). The

respondent consisted of 107 respondents: Seventy-

nine Thai students and 28 English speakers. The data

was collected using contrastive discourse markers

multiple choice test. The result revealed in two.

First, Thai students could distinguish between the

contrast and non-contrast relation between two

utterances at more considerable rate than the English

speakers for the given contexts. The other result

showed where there were various contrastive

discourse markers to choose, Thai students tended to

form a set of rules to deal with the ‘appropriate’

answers. Meanwhile, English speakers consider the

authentic use rather than the semantic use in general.

Finally, for the interchangeability of markers

although and while, Thai students tended to use the

two problematic discourse markers more

interchangeably than English speakers in general

context.

The next previous study that was relevant with

this current research was entitled “The Use of

Discourse Markers among Form Four SLL Students

in Essay Writing” conducted by Yunus and Haris

(2014) They discovered how 30 secondary school

students in Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Hulu

Kelang used discourse markers in their essay writing

and identified the teachers’ perception about the

usage of discourse markers among students. The

misused, overused, and advanced use of it had

become something identified by them. The result of

the research showed that the misuse and overuse of

discourse markers indeed affected the flow of the

students’ essay writing and made it less coherent.

Another study similar to the current one was

conducted by Zhang and He (2015) entitled A

Survey on the Use of Causal Discourse Markers

among Chinese English Majors. The study involved

135 sophomores who major in English Teaching

from China West Normal University in Sichuan

Province as the sample. It aimed to explore the

deeper reasons causing their using features on the

use of causal discourse markers. The questionnaire

was used to collect the data from participants. The

result showed the reasons that caused English majors

using of causal discourse markers are as follow: 1)

lack of stylistic awareness; 2) intentionally avoiding

making mistakes; 3) time factor; 4) negative L1

transfer; 5) teachers’ influence.

Although there are many studies about discourse

markers in writing, researcher found that it is very

few studies concerning discourse markers in English

writing were conducted in Indonesian setting

especially in Aceh. Therefore in the present study

researcher would like to raise up this kind of

research in Aceh setting. This current study also has

An Analysis of Contrastive Discourse Markers in Students’ Essays

the differences with the the previous study as well.

The present study only focused on contrastive

discourse markers used by students in English

writing.

2 RESEARCH METHOD

This study used a qualitative research design which

is focusing on document analysis. Qualitative

research provides an in-depth and interpreted

understanding of the social world of research

participants by learning about their social and

material circumstances, experiences, perspectives

and histories (Ritchie et al., 2013). Denzin and

Lincoln (2000) state that qualitative research

involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the

world. This means that qualitative researchers study

the objects in their natural settings, attempt to make

sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the

meanings people bring to them (cited in Ospina,

2004).

Document analysis involves the study of existing

documents, either to understand their substantive

content or to illuminate deeper meanings which may

be revealed by their style and coverage (Ritchie et

al., 2013). The documents which were analyzed in

this research are students’ written essay papers. It

used to find out the information about how students

use contrastive discourse markers in their essays.

The students’ written essays papers also expected to

inform the researcher and readers regarding to

common used, misused and overused of contrastive

discourse markers. Moreover, it will reveal what are

the problems faced by students’ in their use of

contrastive discourse markers

The participants took part in this research were

26 students at the Department of English Language

Education of UIN Ar-Raniry. They were selected

based on the criteria that determined and required by

researcher. They were English department students

who took writing course and would write an essay in

the current semester.

This research used students’ essays as the

instrument of collecting data. Before collecting the

data, the researcher asked for the cooperation from

the writing lecturers of the selected classroom to ask

the students to write an essay. Students were given

about 1.5 hours to write an essay with free topic

about 3-4 paragraph. Afer students finished their

essays, lecturer collected it and gave it to researcher.

The collected essays were analyzed by the

researcher.

3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Data Analysis

There were several steps employed in order to

analyze the data obtained. The first step was

collecting all documents in form of students’ essays

and analyzing them. The students’ essays were read

thoroughly one by one by the researcher to find

contrastive markers used by the students. First, the

researcher analyzed the common markers used by the

students. It was counted through the percentage of

the occurrence of that marker in students’ essays.

Then, the researcher analyzed what markers that

were misused in students’ essays. Misused markers

mean that the markers are not used properly. It can be

in term of place or the use of punctuation. The last

step was analyzing the contrastive marker which is

overused by students. The researcher tried to find the

marker which is used by them excessively.

3.2 Result

From the analysis of students’ essays, the researcher

found that there were 9 variants of contrastive

discourse markers used by students. They were “but,

however, although, but also, even though, while,

instead, whereas, and on the other hand”. Those 9

variants of contrastive discourse markers only

represent half of contrastive markers items

introduced by Fraser (1999).

Contrastive Discourse Markers

Frequency

Percentages

But

66.29

However

9.00

Although

6.74

Not only.. But also..

11.23

Even though

2.24

While

1.12

Instead

1.12

Whereas

1.12

On the other hand

1.12

TOTAL

100

Based on students’ essays, there were 6

contrastive discourse markers item misused. They

were “but”, “not only.. but also..”, “However”,

“While”, “Whereas”, “Although”, and “even

though”.

BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference

Sample

Drinking alcohol is seldom thing that happen in

our environment. We have to be grateful of it. But,

we also need to worry about effects of drinking

alcohol. [sic]

The use of “but” at the beginning of sentence is

not suitable because “but” is a coordinating

conjunction that has function to join two

independent clause. Contrastive discourse marker

“However” is more suitable to replace marker “but”

in sentence above.

Drinking alcohol is seldom thing that happen in

our environment. We have to be grateful of it.

However, we also need to worry about effects of

drinking alcohol

Sample 10

Almost of the people agree about it but there are

a lot of people skip breakfast with some reason like

not enough time, too lazy to wake up, wanting to

spend the extra time dozing in bed etc.[sic]

We feel lazy because we lost concentration.

Some people aware about that effect but, they still

skip breakfast.[sic]

When the researcher analyzed the essay from

this sample (sample 10), the researcher perceived

that all of contrastive discourse marker “but” are

used wrongly by this participant in his essay. He

used this kind of marker to contrast two ideas.

Theoretically, marker “but” is used as coordinating

conjunction to join two independent clauses which

are set off by comma “,” . This participant was

correct in term of word chosen for contrasting his

ideas. However, he put marker “but”

inappropriately. He repeatedly put “but” at the end

of the first clause then put comma after it. The rules

of using marker “but” as conjunction that showing

contrast are that this marker should be put at the

initial position of the second clause and use coma in

front of this pattern

Sample 5

Because it was their habit throwing rubbish, we

can see when they go to amusement park they leave

their rubbish there because they did not care for

clean environment. Although, there was provide

garbage almost all in the place. [Sic]

Sample 8

Although, people smoke when they are

depressed, lonely or bored and it help them to reduce

the stress.[sic]

The samples above were used marker “although”

as the conjunction showing contrastive relation in

their statement. The use of “although” above is not

suitable. There are two mistakes of the use of

“although” above. First, they used it to contrast two

independent sentences, whereas the truly function of

this marker is to contrast two clauses, independent

and dependent clauses. The second mistake is they

used it in the sense of “however” which is placed in

the initial position of the sentences and set off by

comma “,” right after that marker.

There were also some participants who overused

the contrastive discourse markers in their essays.

The researcher found that the overuse of discourse

markers is in using “but”. The overuse here is in

term that they use “but” as the combination of the

other contrastive discourse markers like “although”

and “even though”.

Sample 4

Many people die because consuming the alcohol.

Even though they knew about the effect for their

bodies but they still do it.[sic]

Sample 6

Although the television has positive side but we

have to realize that television also have negative

sides. [sic]

Two samples above were used markers

“although” and “even though” together with marker

“but” in a sentence. The use of two subordinating

conjunction in a sentence will make the sentence

become wrong. Both “but” and “although” are

subordinating conjunctions and introduce

subordinating clauses. When we use both in the

same sentence, as in the sentences above, there is no

main clause or independent clause in those

sentences. It can be categorized as overused because

contrastive discourse markers “but” was not needed

by the sentences. Since concessive relation has

shown by markers “although” and “even though”.

Moreover, the sentences above will be correct if we

eliminate one conjunction.

Even though they knew about the effect for

their bodies, they still do it.

They knew about the effect for their bodies,

but they still do it.

An Analysis of Contrastive Discourse Markers in Students’ Essays

Researcher found that there are 9 variants of

contrastive discourse markers used by students.

These six variants used by students only

represent half of total contrastive markers

introduced by Fraser adapted and highlighted by

the researcher in this research. The markers used

by the students are but, however, although, not

only… but also… , even though, while, instead,

whereas, and on the other hand. From 9 variants

markers, the common markers that appear

frequently in students essay were; but (66.29%),

not only… but also… (11.23 %), however (8.98%)

and although (6.74%). This results confirms the

studies made by Rahayu and Cahyono (2015)

which found that but, however, although,

are included in the common variants of contrastive

markers used by Indonesian students in EFL

context. In Grammar for English Teacher, also

confirms that those variants of contrastive

discourse markers are mostly used in the

writing context to show contrastive relations.

On the other hand, the other markers including

even though (2.24%), while, instead (1.12%),

whereas (1.12%), and on the other hand (1.12%)

were used minimally by the students. It shows that

they are lacking from the variety in using markers.

They tend to use markers “but” which is more

flexible in the usage.

The researcher found that there were 6

contrastive discourse markers item misused. They

were “but”, “not only..but also..”, “however”,

“while”, “whereas”, “although”, and “even

though”. The misused referred in the current study

comprises incorrect position, inappropriate

punctuation, and misunderstanding the use of

those markers. Although “but” appeared as the

most common contrastive discourse markers used

by students, it is also marked as the most

frequently misused contrastive markers. Regarding

other markers, the errors made by students also in

the scope of misunderstanding of the use of

conjunction. Taken as example, the use of “but

also” to contrast something that is not parallel, the

use of “however” in “although” or “even though”

place or vice versa, and the use of “while” and

“whereas” inappropriately.

The misused of using contrastive discourse

markers can be concluded by the researcher as

the effect of L1 context. Students tend to use

markers in the sense of their L1. For example,

Indonesian language does not use punctuation and

conjunctions in the same way as English does.

Whereas punctuation that follows conjunction is

important and is grammatical meaning in

English. Issue on punctuation is an important

element in writing and should be noticed. In this

research, many participants made error in using

some punctuation especially related to the use

of comma “,” that makes their writing error

grammatically. They used it inappropriately or did

not use it when they put punctuation that required

comma. This finding has resemblance with Hirvela,

Nussbaum, and Pierson (cited in Barry, 2012) that

found comma mistakes appear to be a common

feature of students writing. The other mistake

made by students was the way they position

conjunctions. Many variants of DMs are

polysemy which means their meaning will be

varied depending on what situation or context they

are placed.

Regarding to the overuse of CDMs, the

researcher did not find many cases in students’

essays. The overuse found in this study is only

about putting and joining two contrastive

discourse markers in one sentence. It is true

that discourse markers can extend our sentences,

but overusing them can make the sentences

awkward or inappropriate. The example is when

we use two contrastive markers in a single

sentence but there is no main clause or independent

clause in those sentences. This kind of sentence

using contrastive markers is grammatically error.

4 CONCLUSIONS

After all the data had been collected and analyzed,

the researcher found that the CDMs commonly used

by students are “but”, “however”, “although”,

“Even though”, “on the other hand”, “still”, “not

only… but also…”, and “while”/”whereas”. These

variants of CDMs only represent half of total

contrastive markers introduced by Fraser (1999)

which is highlighted by the researcher in this study.

The misuses of CDMs made by students are ranging

from incorrect position of certain markers,

inappropriate punctuation, and the misunderstanding

of the use of markers. Regarding the overuse of

CDMs, the case found by the researcher is students’

putting and joining two contrastive discourse

markers in one sentence.

Based on the findings stated above, the

researcher can conclude that the participants of this

study are less competent in using the variations of

CDMs as they have limited ability to use these

devices. Participants also have limited knowledge

about the using of these devices. It showed by many

misuses of CDMs ranging from incorrect position of

certain markers, inappropriate punctuation, and the

misunderstanding of the use of markers.

Despite the small number of participants

employed in this study which affect to the limitation

BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference

of generalization of the result, this study provide

implications for students, teachers, and researchers.

This study provides insight of how students of

English department use CDMs in their writing.

Hopefully, they can develop and improve their

ability in using these markers to produce much

better kind of writing.

This research also can help teachers understand

the problems faced by students as well as providing

the way to overcome it. It is necessary to provide

some pedagogical implications for the language

learning and teaching to improve their discourse

competence in terms of employing the CDMs.

Other researchers who have an interest in the use

of DMs in writing may conduct future research

regarding the use of others DMs in writing. The

larger sample than this research is needed to find

more accurately data. The variations of instrument

as well as data collection methods different from this

study are also required.

REFERENCES

Al-Kohlani, F.A 2010. 'The function of discourse markers

in arabic newspaper opinion articles' . Doctoral

dissertation, Georgetown University.

Barry, D 2012. The impact of L1 Arabic on L2 english

writing.

Feng, L 2010. Discourse markers in english writing. J. Int.

Soc. Res. 3, 299–305.

Fraser, B 1999. What are discourse markers? J. Pragmat.

31, 931–952. available from

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378

- 2166(98)00101-5

Halliday, M.A.K., Hasan, R 2014. Cohesion in english.

Routledge.

Jalilifar, A 2008. 'Discourse markers in composition

writings: The case of Iranian learners of english as a

foreign language'. Engl. Lang. Teach. 1. available from

https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v1n2p114

Ospina, S 2004. Qualitative research. Encycl. Leadersh.

1279–1284.

Rahayu, T., Cahyono, B.Y 2015. 'Discourse markers in

expository essays written by Indonesian students of

EFL'. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2, 9.

Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Lewis, P. of S.P.J., Nicholls, C.M.,

Ormston, R 2013. Qualitative Research practice: A

guide for social science students and researchers.

SAGE.

Shareef, F.M.H 2015. The problems of using discourse

markers in Kurdish EFL undergraduate students’

essays. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 3, 230. available from

https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20150304.16

Sitthirak, C 2013. 'A comparison between Thai University

students and english speakers using contrastive

discourse markers' 12.

Yunus, M.M., Haris, S.N.F 2014. 'The use of discourse

markers among form four Sll students in essay

writing'. Int. Educ. Stud. 7. Available from

https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n2p54

Zhang, Y., He, H 2015. A survey on the use of causal

discourse markers among Chinese English majors 5,

125–135. Available from

https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v5n5p126.

An Analysis of Contrastive Discourse Markers in Students’ Essays