SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists / 2026 / Volume: 8 Issue: 3

Discourse marker in descriptive essays: A study on junior high school students

Abdul Wahid(Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar)0000-0001-7882-7751
Imam Suyitno(Universitas Negeri Malang)0000-0001-7733-3637
Suyono Suyono(Universitas Negeri Malang)0000-0001-9698-4363
Martutik -(Universitas Negeri Malang)0000-0002-4013-0964
Pages
—
Publication Date
2020-09-15
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The researcher recommends for the next study to look more closely at the development of thoughts and skills in the use of DM in essay writing.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to determine the use of discourse markers (DM) in the descriptive essay text of students in high school.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The essay writing instrument has a validity value of 95% and a reliability value () of 0.8.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The researcher recommends for the next study to look more closely at the development of thoughts and skills in the use of DM in essay writing.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Discourse markers · Cohession and coherence · Descriptive essays

Abstract

This study aims to determine the use of discourse markers (DM) in the descriptive essay text of students in high school. This study uses a qualitative approach that is classified as a case study. Data in the form of students' descriptive essays were analyzed using descriptive analysis. The essay writing instrument has a validity value of 95% and a reliability value () of 0.8. Participants were 96 grade IX students in Balikpapan, Indonesia, aged between 14-15 years. The purposive sampling method is used to select participants. The participants in this school were chosen because they were accustomed to receiving assignments in writing essay descriptions by their teachers. The results of this study indicate that (1) distance order is the dominant type of DM that is elaborately utilized, followed by elaboration, temporal, contrast, comparison, reason, causal, conclusions, and examples in participants' description essays, (2) class categories of types such as elaboration, comparison, and contrast have not shown varied use of participants, (3) students' DM usage skills are inadequate because of their inability to distribute DM primarily from coordinating conjunctions to linguistic units appropriately, and the existence of multifunctional DM avoidance strategies. The findings of this study become an evaluation material in teaching writing to identify the weaknesses and strengths of the use of discourse markers of high school students. The researcher recommends for the next study to look more closely at the development of thoughts and skills in the use of DM in essay writing.

🔖

Cite This Article

Wahid, A., Suyitno, I., Suyono, S., -, M. (2020). Discourse marker in descriptive essays: A study on junior high school students. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, Volume: 8 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.764191

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (54)

  1. Ab Manan, N. A., & Raslee, N. N. (2017). Describing the use of discourse markers by ESL learners in writing. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 4(3), 101–106. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2017.03.016
  2. Aidinlou, N. A., & Shahrokhi mehr, H. (2012). The effect of discourse markers instruction on EFL learners’ writing. World Journal of Education, 2(2), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v2n2p10
  3. Al-khazraji, A. (2019). Analysis of discourse markers in essays writing in ESL classroom. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 559–572. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12235a
  4. Ali Al-Qahtani, A. (2015). The effect of explicit instruction of textual discourse markers on saudi EFL learners’ reading comprehension. English Language Teaching, 8(4), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n4p57
  5. Ali, E. A., & Mahadin, R. S. (2016). The use of discourse markers in written discourse by students of English at the University of Jordan. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 6(3), 23–35.
  6. Alwi, H., Dardjowidjojo, S., Lapoliwa, H., & M., M. A. (2003). Tata bahasa baku Bahasa Indonesia (3rd Editio). Balai Pustaka.
  7. Asassfeh, S. M., Alshboul, S. S., & Al-Shaboul, Y. M. (2013). Distribution and appropriateness of use of logical connectors in the academic writing of Jordanian English-major undergraduates. Journal of Educational and Psychological Sciences, 222(1259), 1–46.
  8. Baryadi, I. P. (2002). Dasar-dasar analisis wacana dalam ilmu bahasa. Pustaka Gondho Suli.
  9. Blakemore, D. (1996). Are apposition markers discourse markers? Journal of Linguistics, 32(2), 325–347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700015917
  10. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
  11. Brown, H. D. (2008). Prinsip pembelajaran dan pengajaran bahasa (N. Cholis & Y. A. Pareanom (eds.); 5th Editio). Pearson Education.
  12. Casteele, A. Vande, & Collewaert, K. (2013). The use of discourse markers in Spanish language learners’ written compositions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 95, 550–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.681
  13. Castro, C. D. (2004). Cohesion and the social construction of meaning in the essays of filipino college students writing in l2 english. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03024959
  14. Chaer, A. (2006). Tata bahasa praktis Bahasa Indonesia. Rinerka Cipta.
  15. Crossley, S., & McNamara, D. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 32(32), 984–989.
  16. Dardjowidjojo, S. (2012). Psikolinguistik pengantar pemahaman Bahasa Manusia. Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia.
  17. Dawud. (1998). Penalaran dalam tuturan Bahasa Indonesia siswa sekolah dasar. IKIP Malang.
  18. Dumlao, R. P., & Wilang, J. D. (2019). Variations in the use of discourse markers by L1 and L2 English users. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 202–209. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v9i1.15206
  19. Field, Y., & Oi, Y. L. M. (1992). Essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English. RELC Journal, 23(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829202300102
  20. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5
  21. Fraser, B. (2009). An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(2), 293–320. https://doi.org/10.1163/187730909x12538045489818
  22. Ghanbari, N., Dehghani, T., & Shamsaddini, M. R. (2016). Discourse markers in academic and non-academic writing of Iranian EFL Learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(7), 1451–1459.
  23. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English (English Language Series). Longman Publisher.
  24. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Deakin University Press.
  25. Hassan, J., Al, A., & Badie, M. M. (2016). An investigation on the role of discourse markers in the quality of the descriptive compositions of Iraqi ELT students. 20(4), 19–25.
  26. Hinkel, E. (2001). Matters of cohesion in L2 academic etxts. Applied Language Learning, 12(2), 111–132.
  27. Huddleston, R., Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1988). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Language, 64(2), 109–128.
  28. Indiyastini, T. (2009). Kohesi dan koherensi paragraf dalam bahasa jawa. Balai Bahasa Yogyakarta.
  29. Jalilifar, A. (2008). Discourse markers in composition writings: The case of Iranian learners of English as a foreign language. English Language Teaching, 1(2), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v1n2p114
  30. Kapranov, O. (2017). Discourse markers in EFL academic essays written by primary school teacher candidates. Konin Language Studies, 5(4), 473–493. https://doi.org/10.30438/ksj.2017.5.4.5
  31. Karaata, C., Cepik, C., & Cetin, Y. (2012). Enhancing the use of discourse markers in academic writing: The combination of incidental al acquisition and explicit instruction. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 11(40), 11–29. www.esosder.org
  32. Karadeniz, A. (2017). Cohesion and coherence in written texts of students of faculty of education. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(2), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i2.1998
  33. Kemedikbud. (2013). Kompetensi Dasar Kurikulum 2013.
  34. Lampiran Permendikbud No. 68 Tahun 2013, (2013).
  35. Keraf, G. (2004). Komposisi. Nusa Indah.
  36. Knott, A., & Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544883
  37. Lewison, M., Flint, A. S., & Van Sluys, K. (2002). Taking on critical literacy: The journey of newcomers and novices. Language Arts, 79(5), 382–392.
  38. Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  39. Martínez, A. C. L. (2004). Discourse markers in the expository writing of Spanish university students. Ibérica, 8, 63–80.
  40. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd Editio). Sage Publications.
  41. Muhyidin, A. (2020). Does the writing exposition text ability correlate to reading habit and discourse markers mastery? Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(June), 885–895. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.682065
  42. Nassaji, H. (2015). Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 129–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815572747
  43. Polanyi, L., & Scha, R. J. H. (1983). The syntax of discourse. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 3(3), 261–270. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1983.3.3.261
  44. Pranowo. (2015). Teori Belajar Bahasa: untuk Guru Bahasa dan Mahasiswa Jurusan Bahasa. Pustaka Pelajar.
  45. Rahimi, M. (2011). Discourse markers in argumentative and expository writing of Iranian EFL learners. World Journal of English Language, 1(2), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v1n2p68
  46. Rani, A., Martutik, & Arifin, B. (2013). Analisis wacana: Tinjauan deskriptif. Surya Pena Gemilang.
  47. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Teori-teori pembelajaran: Perpektif pendidikan (6th Editio). Pustaka Pelajar.
  48. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. Product Information International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10, 209–241. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209
  49. Sharndama, E. C., & Yakubu, S. (2013). An analysis of discourse markers in academic report writing: pedagogical implications. International Journal of Academic Research and Reflection, 1(3), 15–24.
  50. Šimčikaitė, A. (2012). Spoken discourse markers in learner academic writing. Kalbų Studijos, 20, 27–33. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.0.20.1196
  51. Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. The University of Chicago Press.
  52. Suladi. (2015). Paragraf. Pusat Pembinaan dan Pemasyarakatan Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Jakarta.
  53. Surjowati, R. (2018). The use of discourse markers in EFL students’ essay writing. Fourth Prasasti International Seminar on Linguistics, Prasasti, 248–251. https://doi.org/10.2991/prasasti-18.2018.47
  54. Zhao, H. (2013). A study on the pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers among Chinese English learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(4), 707–714.