Abstract
This article presents and discusses a quantitative investigation of discourse markers (further – DMs) in the corpus of peer reviews of academic essays in didactics written by a group of future teachers of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). In total, 12 future EFL teachers at an intermediate level of EFL proficiency (henceforth – participants) took part in the study. The participants were instructed to form dyads and write peer reviews of each other’s academic essays on a range of topics in EFL didactics. Two corpora were used in the study, the corpus of the participants’ academic essays in EFL didactics and the corpus of peer reviews thereof. The corpora were analysed using WordSmith (Scott 2008) in order to establish the frequencies of the use of DMs per 1000 words. The results of the quantitative analysis of the corpora indicated that the participants employed a repertoire of stylistically neutral DMs in their peer reviews that was quantitatively similar to that of the academic essays. These findings will be further discussed in the article.
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. John Benjamins.
Appel, Randy & Andrzej Szeib. 2018. Linking adverbials in L2 English academic writing: L1-related differences. System 78. 115–129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.08.008
Babanoğlu, M. Pınar. 2014. A corpus-based study on the use of pragmatic markers as speech-like features in Turkish EFL learners’ argumentative essays. Procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences 136. 186–193. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.312
Bax, Stephen, Fumiyo Nakatsuhara & Daniel Waller. 2019. Researching L2 writers’ use of metadiscourse markers at intermediate and advanced levels. System 83. 79–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.02.010
Brusa, Maria Fernanda Poveda de & Liliya Harutyunyan. 2019. Peer review: A tool to enhance the quality of academic written productions. English Language Teaching 12(5). 30–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n5p30
Chen, Cheryl Wei-yu. 2006. The use of conjunctive adverbials in the academic papers of advanced Taiwanese EFL learners. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(1). 113–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.11.1.05che
Connor, Ulla & Anna Mauranen. 1999. Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European Union research grants. English for Specific Purposes 18(1). 47–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00026-4
Conrad, Cheryl D., Liisa A. M. Galea, Yasukazu Kuroda & Bruce S. McEwen. 1996. Chronic stress impairs rat spatial memory on the Y maze, and this effect is blocked by tianeptine treatment. Behavioral neuroscience 110(6). 1321–1334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0735-7044.110.6.1321
Council of Europe. 2011. Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR). Language versions. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadreen.asp
Crawford, William J., Kim McDonough & Nicole Brun-Mercer. 2019. Identifying linguistic markers of collaboration in second language peer Interaction: A lexico-grammatical approach. TESOL Quarterly 53(1). 180–207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.477
Drew, Ion & Bjørn Sørheim. 2016. English teaching strategies: Methods for English teachers of 10 to 16–year olds. Det Norske Samlaget.
Fish, Stanley. 2011. How to write a sentence: And how to read one. HarperCollins.
Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31(7). 931–952. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5
Fraser, Bruce. 2015. The combining of Discourse Markers – A beginning. Journal of Pragmatics 86. 48–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.007
Gil, Noelia Navarro. 2018. Reflexive metadiscourse in a corpus of Spanish bachelor dissertations in EFL. Research in Corpus Linguistics 6. 29–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32714/ricl.06.04
Hayisama, Faridah, Mohamed Ismail Ahamad Shah & Wan Nur Asyura Wan Adnan. 2019. Rhetorical style across cultures: An analysis of metadiscourse markers in academic writing of Thai and Malaysian students. LSP International Journal 6(1). 19–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11113/lspi.v6n1.76
Hryniuk, Katarzyna. 2018. Expressing authorial self in research articles written by Polish and English native-speaker writers: A corpus-based study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 8(3). 621–642. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.3.5
Hu, Guangwei & Sandra Tsui Eu Lam. 2010. Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional Science 38. 371–394. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9086-1
Hyland, Ken. 2008. Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching 41(4). 543–562. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005235
IBM. 2016. SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. IBM Corp.
Jančaříková, Renata, Renata Povolná, Olga Dontcheva-Navratilová, Světlana Hanušová & Martin Němec. 2020. An academic writing needs analysis of Czech university graduate students. Discourse and Interaction 13(1). 42-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2020-1-42
Jiang, Feng (Kevin) & Ken Hyland. 2020. “There are significant differences…”: The secret life of existential there in academic writing. Lingua 233. 102758. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102758
Joachim, Christian, Jim K. Gimzewski & Arieh Aviram. 2000. Electronics using hybrid-molecular and mono-molecular devices. Nature 408. 541–548. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/35046000
Johansen, Stine Hulleberg. 2020. A contrastive approach to the types of hedging strategies used in Norwegian and English informal spoken conversations. Contrastive Pragmatics 2(1). 81–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/26660393-12340006
Kapranov, Oleksandr. 2017. Discourse markers in academic writing in EFL by Swedish pre-service secondary school teachers of English. Logos & Littera 4(1). 21–39.
Kim, Sugene. 2019. Japanese student writers’ perspectives on anonymous peer review. ELT Journal 73(3). 296–305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy061
Kwon, Eunsook & Shinhye Kim. 2019. Korean EFL college students’ identity negotiation through peer review and revision in their writing. Studies in English Language and Literature 45(2). 237–263.
Lotfi, Seyyed Abdolmajid Tabatabaee, Seyyed Amir Hossein Sarkeshikian & Elaheh Saleh. 2019. A cross-cultural study of the use of metadiscourse markers in argumentative essays by Iranian and Chinese EFL students. Cogent Arts & Humanities 6(1). 1601540. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2019.1601540
McDonough, Kim, Jindarat De Vleeschauwer & William Crawford. 2018. Comparing the quality of collaborative writing, collaborative prewriting, and individual texts in a Thai EFL context. System 74. 109–120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.02.010
Mulligan, Adrian, Louise Hall & Ellen Raphael. 2013. Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64(1). 132–161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22798
Paltridge, Brian. 2017. The discourse of peer review: Revieving submissions to academic journals. Palgrave Macmillan.
Povolná, Renata. 2013. On some variation in the use of discourse markers by Czech and German students of English. Discourse and Interaction 6(2). 41–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2013-2-41
Ramos, Kathleen Ann. 2015. Using genre pedagogy to teach adolescent English learners to write academic persuasive essays. Journal of Education 195(2). 19–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741519500205
Sato, Shie. 2019. A corpus-based analysis of so in written discourse: A comparison between L1 English speakers and Japanese EFL learners. Applied Pragmatics 1(1). 26–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.00002.sat
Scott, Mike. 2001. Comparing corpora and identifying key words, collocations, and frequency distributions through the Word Smith Tools suite of computer programs. In Mohsen Ghadessy, Alex Henry & Robert L. Roseberry (eds.), Small corpus studies and ELT: Theory and practice, John Benjamins. 47–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.5.07sco
Scott, Mike. 2008. Wordsmith Tools: version 4.0: single-user licence.
Šimčikaitė, Alė. 2012. Spoken discourse markers in learner academic writing. Kalbų Studijos 20. 27–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.0.20.1196
Swales, John. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Unaldi, Ihsan. 2013. Overuse of discourse markers in Turkish English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ writing: The case of ‘I think’ and ‘in my opinion’. The Anthropologist 16(3). 575–584. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2013.11891383
Vorobel, Oksana & Deoksoon Kim. 2014. Focusing on content: Discourse in L2 peer review groups. TESOL Journal 5(4). 698–720. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.126
Westergaard, Marit, Natalia Mitrofanova, Roksolana Mykhaylyk & Yulia Rodina. 2017. Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of a third language: The Linguistic Proximity Model. International Journal of Bilingualism 21(6). 666–682. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916648859
Wolk, Christoph, Sandra Götz & Katja Jäschke. 2021. Possibilities and drawbacks of using an online application for semi-automatic corpus analysis to investigate discourse markers and alternative fluency variables. Corpus Pragmatics 5. 7–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-019-00072-x
Yallop, Roger Michael Alan & Djuddah A. J. Leijen. 2018. The perceived effectiveness of written peer feedback comments within L2 English academic writing courses. Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu Aastaraamat 14. 247–271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5128/ERYa14.15
Zhao, Huahiu. 2018. New insights into the process of peer review for EFL writing: A process-oriented socio-cultural perspective. Learning and Instruction 58. 263–273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.07.010
Ziyagham, Faezeh & Shahla Simin. 2018. Speech-like pragmatic markers in argumentative essays written by Iranian EFL students and native English-speaking students. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research 6(21). 133–145.