The Pragmatic Argumentation of Discourse Markers in English Academic Writing: A Corpus-Based Analysis
Abstract
Academic writing is a key skill for success in academic life, particularly for graduate students of a foreign language. The importance of writing to academic culture, practice, and knowledge building has led to a great deal of research in many fields, including rhetoric and composition, linguistics, applied linguistics, and English for Academic Purposes (EAP). Often, studies and research investigating academic writing are motivated by the need to inform the learning of writing to native and non-native English-speaking students, through both descriptions of professional academic writing as well as through comparisons of novice writer (native and non-native English-speaking) and expert production. However, while learning about academic writing to better inform teaching content and practices is an important aim, Bazerman (1994, P. 10) points out that understanding language use in the disciplines also helps us to use language more effectively, can guide writers and editors as they work with contributor texts, and helps provide non-specialist readers with access to the discourse of the disciplines. Thus, describing and understanding patterns and pragmatic of argumentation of language use in academic writing allows us to understand the disciplinary cultures and practices that they embody. This is why many linguists and scholars have long been fascinated with the language of academia, particularly in the form of written texts. This interest has developed and expanded over the past few decades, in part due to the premise that much can be learned about disciplinary practices and cultures by examining academic writing: the primary means of the transmission of knowledge in academic fields.
Keywords: discourse markers, university essay, L1-L2 writers, coherence-based approach, language use in academic writing, etc.
References
Akyel, A. 1994.First language use in EFL writing: Planning in Turkish vs. planning in English. In International Journal of Applied Linguistics,4, 169–197.
Anderiessen, J., Baker, M., &Suthers, D. 2000.Argumentation, Computer Support, and the Educational Context of Confronting Cognitions.Kluwer AcademicPublishers.
Anderson, R. C., Spiro, R. J., and Anderson, M. C. 1978.Schemata as Scaffolding for TheRepresentation of Information in Connected Discourse. American Educational Research Journal. 15. (3), 433-440.
Andersen, G. &Fretheim, T.2001. Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation: a Relevance Theoretic Approach to TheLanguage of Adolescents. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Angelova, M., & Riazantsteva, R. 1999.If you don’t tell me, how can I know?: A case study of four international students learning to write the U.S. way. Written Communication, 16(4), 491-525.
Anthony, L. 2006. “Developing a freeware, multiplatform corpus analysis toolkit for the technical writing classroom”.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 49(3).
Bar-Hillel, Y., 1954, “Indexical expressions,” Mind 63: 359–79. Reprinted in Kasher1998, vol. 1.
Bazerman, C. 1994. Constructing experience. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Berland, L. K., &Reiser, B. J. 2009. Making sense of argumentation and explanation.Science Education, 93(1).
Belcher, D. & Braine, G. 1995.Introduction.In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.).Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. xiv–xxxi). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bestgen, Y. 1998 “Segmentation markers as trace and signal of discourse structure”.Journal of Pragmatics 29: 753-763.
Biber, D & S. Conrad. 1999. “Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose”. Out of Corpora: Studies in Honor of Stig Johansson. ed. by H. Hasselgård& S. Oksefjell, 181–189. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic constrains on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Carnap, R. 1956. Meaning and necessity: a study in semantics and modal logic. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Carter, R.& McCarthy, M., 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.
Cohen, A. D.,& Brooks-Carson, A. 2001. “Research on direct versus translated writing: Students’ strategies and their results,” In The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 85, pp. 169–188.
Comrie, B. 1987. Grammatical Relations, Sematic Roles, and Topic-Comment Structure in a New Guinea Highland Language: Harway, In Language Topics: Essays in Honor of Michael Halliday, ed. By Steele & Terry Theadgold.Amesterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Eemeren et al. 2002.Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Lawrence Erlbaum Inc.
Fox, B.& S. Thompson. 1990. A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation Language 66: 51-64.
Freedman, S., &Calfee, R. 1983. Holistic assessment of writing : Experimental design and cognitive theory. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on Writing (pp.75-98). New York: Longman.
Friedlander, A. 1990. “Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language,” In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 109–125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fraser, B.1990. “An Approach to Discourse Markers”.Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 383- 395.
Gerard, S. 2010. Discourse Analysis and Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Amster-dam: John Benjamins Pub.
Giveon, T. 1984. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Harcourt, H. 2011. Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
Jucker, A. & Y. Ziv. 1998. Discourse markers: Introduction. In: A Jucker&and Yael Ziv (eds.). Discourse Markers: Description and Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1-12.
Kaplan, R. 2014. Contrastive Rhetoric and Discourse Analysis: Who Writes What to Whom? When? In What Circumstances?”Discourse and Social Life.SrikantSarangi and Malcolm Coulthard. New York: Routledge .82-102.
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge. New York : Cambridge University Press.
Martin, J.R. 1995. Interpersonal meaning, persuasion, and public discourse: Packing semiotic punch. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 15, 3-67.
Mey, J. L. 2001. Pragmatics: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell publishers.
Morris, C. 1938. ‘Foundations of the theory of signs’, in O. Neurath, R. Carnap and C.Morris (eds.) International encyclopedia of unified science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 77-138.
Nussbaum, E. M. 2005. The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 286-313
O’Suullivan, F. & Champers, A. 2006.“Learners’ Writing Skills in French”.Groups Consultation and Learners Evaluation.Journal of Second Language Writing.15 (168-49).
Raimes, A. 1991.Out of the Woods: Emerging Traditions in the Teaching of Writing. TESOL Quarterly. 25.407-430.
Redeker, G., 1991.Review article: Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics 29(6): 1139-1172.
Richards, J.C & Schmidt, R.W. 1983.“Conversational Analysis” in J. C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt Language and Communication. London: Longman.
Rumelhart, D.E. 1980. Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R.J. Spiro, & B. Bruce (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading and comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schiffrin, D., 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silva, T. 1990. Second language composition instruction: development, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing, research in sights for the classroom (pp. 11-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vasilyev, G. 2002. Argumentative-Linguistic of Theoretical Text Comprehension. Bulletin of Russian Communication Association .Institute of Management, Business and Law Publishing, 2002. - 168 p. P. 142-149.
Witte, R. S. & Witte, J.S. 2009.Statistics (9th Edition).John Wiley & Sons.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Declaration/Copyright transfer:
1. In consideration of the undertaking set out in paragraph 2, and upon acceptance by ANGLISTICUM for publication of the manuscript in the Journal, I/We hereby assign and transfer publication rights to ANGLISTICUM, whereas I/We retain the copyright for the manuscript. This assignment provides ANGLISTICUM the sole right and responsibility to publish the manuscript in its printed and online version, and/or in other media formats.
2. In consideration of this assignment, ANGLISTICUM hereby undertakes to prepare and publish the manuscript in the Journal, subject only to its right to refuse publication if there is a breach of the Author’s warranty in paragraph 4 or if there are other reasonable grounds.
3. Editors and the editorial board of ANGLISTICUM are empowered to make such editorial changes as may be necessary to make the Manuscript suitable for publication.
4. I/We hereby acknowledge that: (a) The manuscript submitted is an original work and that I/We participated in the work substantively and thus I/We hereby are prepared to take public responsibility for the work; (b) I/We hereby have seen and approved the manuscript as submitted and that the manuscript has not either been published, submitted or considered for publication elsewhere; (c) The text, illustration, and any other materials included in the manuscript do not infringe upon any existing copyright or other rights of anyone.
5. I/We hereby indemnify ANGLISTICUM and the respective Editors of the Journal as mentioned in paragraph 3, and hold them harmless from any loss, expense or damage occasioned by a claim or suit by a third party for copyright infringement, or any suit arising out of any breach of the foregoing warranties as a result of publication of the manuscript.
