Proceeding of 1st International Conference on The Teaching of English and Literature

e-ISBN: 978-623-95206-0-1 (PDF)

Volume 1, Number 1, November 2020
Page 157-164

An Analysis of Discourse Markers Used By Students in Writing Argumentative Text

Junitri Dian Syahdanis

Universitas Bengkulu
junitridiansyahdanis4@gmail.com

Abstract

This study was designed as analytical research that aimed to analyze Discourse Markers (DMs) used
by students in the argumentative text. In this research, the instrument used was a writing test. The
theories used were from Fraser (1999:931) combined Martinez (2004:63) to find the dominant of
Discourse Markers and Kao and Chen (2011:310) to find the accuracy of Discourse Markers written
by the students. The subjects of this study were 78 fifth-semester students of the English study
program at Bengkulu University in the academic year of 2018/2019. The result of the study showed
that there were four categories of Discourse Markers by Fraser’s (1999:931) which were Contrastive,
Elaborative, Inferential, and Reason Discourse Markers and collaborated with Martinez’s (2004:63),
there were two more additional categories (Conclusive and Exemplifiers Discourse Markers). The
dominant Discourse Markers found was Elaborative Markers (33.91%) where marker ‘Also’ written
about 101 occurrences (29.28%). It implies that in writing argumentative text, the students tended to
elaborate on the concepts rather than conclude, give a justification, show comparison, infer, and give
examples. Furthermore, the outcome also revealed that most of the students were able to use
Discourse Markers correctly in writing argumentative text because only 18 (5.19%) were found to be
unacceptable from 345 Discourse Markers where three categories found were Overuse, Wrong
Relation, and Semantic Incompletion.

Keywords: Argumentative Text, discourse markers

Introduction
In both written and spoken discourse, in achieving the communicative aims of socially
situated expression, Discourse Markers (DMs) play an important role. Kohlani (2017:193) said that
DMs operate across sentence boundaries to link the above textual units to the sentence and guide the
text interpretation by the text-receivers according to the text-producers' communicative intent. In
addition to their function in producing texts, DMs are assumed to be semantically empty and
grammatically optional. DMs are thought to be semantically empty and grammatically optional, in
addition to their function in generating text (Rahmawati, et al. 2019; Syafryadin, 2020).
By conducting this research, the researcher hopes this research can provide theoretical and
practical contributions. Theoretically, the result is expected can give a contribution to the current
knowledge about DMs. Practically, this study is expected can give more references to DMs study.
Dewi Afriyanti (2015:51) had done research entitled David Cameron’s Discourse Markers in the
Andre Marr Show. This research dealt with specific kinds of DMs. The purpose of this research was to
find out the utterances of the DMs used by David Cameron in the Andrew Marr show on September
28, 2014, and to define the significance of the entire DMs based on the context used in the interview

157
 Proceeding of 1st International Conference on The Teaching of English and Literature
e-ISBN: 978-623-95206-0-1 (PDF)
Volume 1, Number 1, November 2020
Page 157-164

by David Cameron. A qualitative approach is a technique used in this study. She used Fraser’s theory
to analyze the result. The result of this study was the writer found the dominant marker was And.
This current research would be different in terms of background from previous research. In
this research, the researcher will only focus on the accuracy and dominant discourse marker (DM)
used by fifth-semester students of the English study program at Bengkulu University in the academic
year of 2018/2019 in using DMs, because they have learned Discourse Markers in Discourse Analysis
lesson in the fourth semester, so they have already known about discourse makers. Then, this research
will only use a test as an instrument. To collect the data, the researcher used argumentative texts
written by English Students because it is one of the texts that use DMs as their main component. The
researcher will categorize Discourse Markers based on Fraser (1999:931) and Martinez’s (2004:63)
theory. This present research will use a mixed-method, while the previous research uses the only
qualitative method.
However, there are some reasons why DMs are interesting to be studied. First, an informal
interview with the students showed that they are still confused about conducting a text using DMs.
Second, the students might not aware of how to choose the appropriate DMs to build coherent in text
or that the use is redundant, while students have to put the right DMs in or between sentences to build
logicality. Third, students might not aware that DMs play an important role in learning English
because DMs will connect textual units between sentences and direct the text-receivers to get the
meaning of the text according to the meaning of the text-producers. For all these purposes, the
researcher performs this study intending to figure the dominant DM used by the students and the
relevant DM used by the students.

Research Methodology
This study was mixed-method research because in this research the researcher used a
percentage formula to analyze the data then explained it theoretically. Cresswell in Sugiyono
(2013:5), claimed that the quantitative approach usually started with data collection based on a
hypothesis or theory and proceeded by the use of descriptive or inferential statistics. In this analysis,
the score of the test was counted using this form. The investigator used qualitative approaches to
produce the result. According to Creswell in Sugiyono (2013:5), the qualitative method was an
understanding investigative process centered on different methodological research traditions that
examined a social or human issue. In a natural environment, the researcher produced a dynamic,
holistic image, interpreted terms, recorded a comprehensive view of knowledge, and conducted a
study.
This research was conducted in fifth-semester of the English study program at Bengkulu
University in the academic year of 2018/2019. There were 78 students became subject. Arikunto
158
 Proceeding of 1st International Conference on The Teaching of English and Literature
e-ISBN: 978-623-95206-0-1 (PDF)
Volume 1, Number 1, November 2020
Page 157-164

(2006:134) claimed that it would be easier to take all of the subjects if the topic consisted of less than
100. Otherwise, if the subject was more than 100, 10-15% or 20-25% of the subject could be used as a
subject. So, the subject of this research would take all of the population. The subject would be taken
because they have already taken Discourse Markers in Discourse Analysis lesson.
In this research, the instrument used was a writing test. Arikunto (2013:193) claimed that the
test was a few questions or exercises and another method used to assess a person or group's
knowledge, intellect, skill, or talent. The test in this research was in the form of argumentative text
with some topics given.
The basis of argumentative writing was critical and logical thinking. It made the argumentation of the
writing based on logical facts. The reasoning should be the basis of argumentation which was a thought
process that sought to connect the known facts or evidence led to a conclusion. Thought who tried
linking to achieve a logical conclusion. Pieces of evidence were all facts that exist, all information, or
authorities, etc. that were linked to prove a truth (Keraf, 2004:3).
Based on those criteria above, the researcher chose the following topic: The Impact of Using
Social Media, The Impact of Online Purchasing, and The Impact of English Lesson Reduced at
School. Then, they need to choose one of them and made it into a short text which contains at least
300 words. The test should be done in 45 minutes, and the students needed to return the paper to the
researcher. From those texts, the DMs found categorized based on Fraser (1999:931) combined with
Martinez (2004:63) to found the dominant DM, then, they were categorized based on Kao and Chen
(2011:310) to analyzed the accuracy and analyzed the inappropriate markers used. The data collected
from the test were analyzed by using the formula as follows:

P = Percentage of the response of participants to the test

F = frequency of an identical response
N = number of attendees
The data were converted into a table, then converted into descriptive statistics.

Findings and Discussion

Findings
From the subject of the research, there were 345 DMs in 78 argumentative texts written by the
students. As the fundamental reference of analysis, the researcher used Fraser’s (1999:931) types of
DMs, he proposed four categories of DMs which were contrastive, elaborative, inferential, and reason
discourse marker. Then, collaborated it with DMs types from Martinez’s (2004:63) which were
conclusive and exemplifier discourse to answer the first research question.

159
 Proceeding of 1st International Conference on The Teaching of English and Literature
e-ISBN: 978-623-95206-0-1 (PDF)
Volume 1, Number 1, November 2020
Page 157-164

Table 1. All Discourse Markers (DMs) Used by the Fifth-Semester English Students
Categories DMs Approriate Inappropriate Total
Freqency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Contrastive However 6 1.74% 0 0.00% 6 1.74%
Although 1 0.29% 0 0.00% 1 0.29%
But 44 12.76 3 0.87% 47 13.63%
Yet 2 0.58% 0 0.00% 2 0.58%
In contrast 2 0.58% 0 0.00% 2 0.58%
On the other 8 2.31% 0 0.00% 8 2.31%
hand
Total of Contrastive DMs 63 18.44% 3 0.87% 66 19.31%
Elaborative In addition 4 1.15% 0 0.00% 4 1.15%
Also 96 27.83% 5 1.45% 96 27.83%
Besides 10 2.90% 0 0.00% 10 2.90%
Furthermore 2 0.58% 0 0.00% 2 0.58%
Total Elaborative DMs 111 32.46% 5 1.45% 117 33.91%
Inferential Accordingly 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
As a result 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Because of 2 0.58% 0 0.00% 2 0.58%
Therefore 4 1.15% 1 0.29% 5 1.44%
Thus 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Total of Inferential DMs 6 1.73% 1 0.29% 7 2.02%
Reason After all 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Because 49 14.21% 4 1.16% 53 15.37%
For this/that 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
reason
Since 7 2.03% 0 0.00% 7 2.03%
Total of Reason DMs 56 16.24% 4 1.16% 60 17.40%
Conclusive In conclusion 16 4.64% 1 0.29% 17 4.93%
In short 3 0.87% 0 0.00% 3 0.87%
To sum up 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
In sum 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Total of Conclusive DMs 19 5.52% 1 0.29% 20 5.80%
Exemplifier For example 23 6.67% 0 0.00% 23 6.67%
Such as 48 13.91% 4 1.16% 52 15.07%
For instance 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
e.g. 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Total of Exemplifier DMs 69 20.58% 4 1.16% 75 21.74%
TOTAL DMs Used 327 94.79% 18 5.21% 345 100%

To answer the first research question, from both of theory used, there was the dominant
category of DMs used by the English student, named Elaborative DM with the frequency of 117
occurrences (33.91%) with the details of subcategories are In addition (4 occurrences, 1.15%), Also
(101 occurrences, 29.28%), Besides (10 occurrences, 2.90%) and Furthermore (2 occurrences,
0.58%). It can be seen that the dominant category of Elaborative DM was Also with the frequency was
101 occurrences (29.28%).
The second research question was about the accuracy, the researcher analyzed all markers
found in those argumentative texts by using the types of inappropriateness criteria of DMs used the
theory by Kao and Chen (2011:310). To measure the accuracy, the researcher adopted this theory
160
 Proceeding of 1st International Conference on The Teaching of English and Literature
e-ISBN: 978-623-95206-0-1 (PDF)
Volume 1, Number 1, November 2020
Page 157-164

because it was similar to know whether the use of DMs was appropriate or not, to make the
Argumentative text accurate, coherent, and also complex. Based on Kao and Chen, there are some
categories of inappropriateness in using DMs, they were:

Table 2. Inappropriateness Criteria of DMs use by Kao and Chen

Inappropriate Annotation
Non-equivalent exchange The use of Discourse Markers, although they do not conveys the
same textual relationship in an interchangeable manner
Overuse The high intensiveness of DMs occurs
Surface logicality The use of DMs to impose rationality or bridge the distance between
proportions when their presence does not exist
Wrong relation The inability to communicate a certain textual relationship by using
specific DMs
Semantic Incompletion The lack of elaboration that makes a DM less functional
Distraction The non-essential uses of DMs

Through this theory, the researcher analyzed all of the argumentative text written by the fifth-
semester students of the English Department, Bengkulu University, and found some types of
inappropriateness criteria of DMs use as can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3. The Inappropriateness of DMs used by the Fifth Semester English Students
Inappropriateness Criteria (IC) Total of Percentage
Inappropriateness DMs (TI-DMs x 100%)
(TI-DMs) T-DMs
Non-Equivalent exchange 0 0.00%
Overuse 3 0.86%
Surface logicality 0 0.00%
Wrong relation 10 2.89%
Semantic incompletion 5 1.44%
Distraction 0 0.00%
Total of Inappropriateness 18 5.19%
There were 18 (5.19%) of the inappropriateness of DMs from a total of 345 DMs used by the
English Student at Bengkulu University. It can be seen from the table above that there were three of
six DMs Inappropriateness categories found in this research. From 18 (5.19%) total of
inappropriateness, the three categories found were Overuse (3 occurrences, 0.86%), Wrong Relation
(10 occurrences, 2.89%), and Semantic Incompletion (5 occurrences, 1.44%).

Discussion
According to research results, this section was purposed to address the entire application of
discourse markers. The first research question was the dominant DMs used by the fifth-semester
English students. In this analysis, we found that Elaborative DMs were the dominant category of
DMs. It implies that the students tended to elaborate on the concepts rather than conclude, give a
justification, contrast, infer, and give an instance. It can be seen that the dominant DM of Elaborative

161
 Proceeding of 1st International Conference on The Teaching of English and Literature
e-ISBN: 978-623-95206-0-1 (PDF)
Volume 1, Number 1, November 2020
Page 157-164

DM was Also because it was the familiar marker for the students to elaborate ideas. Rahimi (2011:67)
claimed that the students prefer to elaborate more because the most familiar DMs that they familiar
were elaborative. Furthermore, because in this research the students were asked to write
argumentative text, Also functioned to give many reasons, arguments, and added more information.
The second frequent category of DMs was exemplifier DM which was included in the
elaborative DM, according to Fraser (1999:931), since the purpose of it also to elaborate the ideas, but
to provide an example. On the other hand, Martinez (2004:63) took exemplifier DM from elaborative
DM since giving an example can be seen as elaborate, but it was not possible to consider elaborating
as giving an example. The dominant DM in exemplifier DM was Such as because most of the students
were introduced to an example of something they mention in one sentence. According to English
Stack Exchange, Such as functioned as to connect words or phrases to the rest of the sentence. The
third frequent category of DMs was contrastive, used by students to demonstrate or contrast one
concept with the other to demonstrate the opposite opinion. It was often used to convey various views
or to equate one definition to the other (Fraser, 1999:931). The dominant DM in contrastive DM was
But. Related to kind of text, argumentative text showed a contrast and gave a reason, so, But was the
familiar markers for the students to show contrast and reason.
The least frequent type of discourse marker was inferential DM that used to indicate that what
was said followed logically from what was previously said. Inferential DM, on the other hand,
transmitted the message to the subject they needed to bring (Kaveifard & Allami, 2011:1787). The
dominant DM in inferential DM was Because of with occurrences only 7 because the students were
grammatically easier to use because rather than because of.
Based on the data for the first research question, it can be seen that most of the English
Students used DM Also. Usually, the students used this DM to explain more information about
something that they think. Of course, they used it more frequently than other DMs in Elaborative DM.
In contrast, the least frequency of DMs found in Inferential DM (Accordingly, As a Result, Thus),
Reason DM (After all, For this/that reason), Conclusive DM (To sum up, In sum) and Exemplifier
DM (For Instance, e.g.) with 0 occurrences of use. It caused that English students only used the
familiar DMs that they remembered. Some DMs may be familiar for students, such as As a result,
Thus, After all, and e.g., but they decided to use the simplest and easiest DMs that they already used in
everyday life. Another reason, maybe the students were not able to use various DMs yet in writing
their argumentative text.
For the second research question, the theory of inappropriateness DMs by Kao and Chen
(2011:310) was used. There were 18 from 345 DMs used by the English Student at Bengkulu
University. There were three of six DMs Inappropriateness categories found in this research. From 18
total of inappropriateness, the three categories found were Overuse, Wrong Relation, and Semantic
162
 Proceeding of 1st International Conference on The Teaching of English and Literature
e-ISBN: 978-623-95206-0-1 (PDF)
Volume 1, Number 1, November 2020
Page 157-164

Incompletion. In other words, the English students were able to use Discourse Markers in making the
text coherent and accurate. To sum up, the fifth-semester students in the English Department at
Bengkulu University mostly understood how to use the DMs, especially in argumentative text. But,
the students were lack in grammar in writing the argumentative text.

Conclusion and Suggestion

According to the Result and discussion, some conclusions related to the DMs written by the
students can be drawn as follows. With regard to the data analysis dealing with the category of DMs,
78 argumentative text written by the students, the most dominant category of DMs uttered by students
is elaborative DM, and the most dominant DM was Also which included to elaborative DM. Due to
the fact that not all of the students understood how to use discourse markers, there were 18
inappropriatenesses of DMs. The inappropriatenesses was overuse, semantic incompletion, and wrong
relation. Because the total of inappropriate markers only 18 (5.19%) from 345 (100%), the students
were aware of how to use DMs appropriately.
After performing the research, the researcher wants to offer suggestions as follows: For
students, hopefully, it can be used as guidance to use DMs in their writing. It will help the students to
understand the types and functions of DMs. For the lectures, the researcher wishes that the lecturer
may get more understanding about Discourse Markers used, especially in writing argumentative text.
For further research, in particular, dealing with DMs would make a great contribution to teaching and
learning the English language.

References
Arikunto, S. (2006). Prosedur penelitian. Jakarta: PT. Asadi Mahasatya.
Arikunto, S. (2013) Prosedur penelitian. Jakarta. PT. Rineka Cipta.
Afriyanti, D. (2015). David Cameron’s discourse markers in the Andre Marr show. Available at
http://repository.uinjkt.ac.id/dspace/handle/123456789/31098. (Accessed September 23,
2018).
English Stack Exchange. Available at https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/225565/what-is-
the-function-of-such-as-in-this-sentence. (Accessed February 2, 2019).
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers?. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952.
Kao, T. & Chen, L. (2011). Diagnosing discoursal organization in learner writing via conjunctive
adverbial. ROCLING papers, 310-322.
Kaveifard, E. & Allami, H. 2011. Inferential discourse markers in the discussion section of
psychology research articles across English and Persian. Theory and Practice in Language
Studies, 1(12), 1786-1791.
163
 Proceeding of 1st International Conference on The Teaching of English and Literature
e-ISBN: 978-623-95206-0-1 (PDF)
Volume 1, Number 1, November 2020
Page 157-164

Keraf, G. 2004. Argumentasi dan narasi. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Kohlani, F. (2017). The function of discourse markers in Arabic newspaper opinion articles. Scientific
Journal of KFU (Humanities and Management Sciences), 18(1), 193-214.
Martinez, A. C. L. (2004). Discourse markers in the expository writing of Spanish university
students. IBERICA, 8(2), 63-80.
Rahimi, M. (2011). Discourse markers in argumentative and expository written by Indonesian
students. World Journal of English Language, 1(2), 67-78.
Rahmawati, I. N., Syafryadin, S., & Widiastuti, R. (2019). Teaching Narrative Writing Using Freaky
Fables Game: An Experimentation. English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 12(2),
147-155
Syafryadin, S. (2019). Contrastive Analysis of Discourse Representation In Indonesia Newspaper
(KOMPAS) and English Newspaper Reports (Jakarta Post). ENGLISH FRANCA: Academic
Journal of English Language and Education, 3(02), 109-124.
Sugiyono. (2013). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.

164