Hilda Fadilla, Widhiyanto, Sri Wahyuni

Discourse Markers in the Introductory Section of Research Articles in National accredited Journal

Introduction

Discourse markers in the introductory section of research articles in national accredited journal. This study analyzes discourse markers in research article introductions using Fraser's framework. It finds elaborative markers are most used, impacting argument development and clarity in nationally accredited journals.

Abstract

Discourse markers provide writers with signaling devices to connect ideas and guide readers in grasping the connection of ideas in the texts. An introductory section of a journal article represents a unique text which should be written with clear and interconnected arguments. This paper aims to reveal how discourse markers play vital roles in realizing the development of the arguments in this knotty text. To achieve this, introductory sections of articles published in a nationally accredited journal were examined. Using Fraser's (2009) functional classes of discourse markers, 22 introduction sections were analyzed employing text analysis to determine the usage of these markers. It was found that despite employing all types of discourse markers, not all of them were applied appropriately. Their uses may not be in line with their functional classification. Among others, there are three functional classes of discourse markers proposed by Fraser (2009), they are contrastive markers, elaborative markers, and inferential markers. Elaborative markers were the most used type among the different types, followed by contrastive and inferential markers. This implies that authors tended to develop ideas more often, whereas contrastive and inferential markers were used less frequently but were crucial for indicating differences and making conclusions within the texts.

Review

This paper addresses a highly relevant topic in academic writing: the strategic deployment of discourse markers (DMs) within the introductory sections of research articles. Focusing on articles published in a nationally accredited journal, the study effectively articulates its aim to uncover how DMs facilitate argument development in this crucial section. Employing Fraser's (2009) well-established framework for functional classes of DMs, the authors meticulously analyzed 22 introductory sections. A significant finding reveals that while all types of DMs were utilized, their application was not consistently appropriate or aligned with their proposed functional classifications. Notably, elaborative markers emerged as the most frequently used, in contrast to the less frequent, yet functionally critical, contrastive and inferential markers. While the core methodology and findings are clearly presented, the abstract raises several points that would benefit from further elaboration in the full manuscript. The assertion that DMs were 'not all applied appropriately' and that their 'uses may not be in line with their functional classification' is a critical insight, yet the abstract does not provide specific examples or detailed explanations of what constitutes 'inappropriate' use. For instance, understanding the nature of these misapplications and their potential impact on reader comprehension would strengthen the argument. Furthermore, while the imbalance in DM usage (more elaborative, fewer contrastive/inferential) is noted, the abstract could delve deeper into the *implications* of this pattern beyond simply stating that authors 'tended to develop ideas more often'. Overall, this study makes a valuable contribution to the understanding of rhetorical strategies in academic writing, particularly within the context of national scholarly publications. Its findings offer important pedagogical implications for both novice and experienced researchers, underscoring the need for careful and functionally appropriate use of discourse markers to enhance clarity and argumentative coherence. Future research could usefully expand upon these findings by investigating the specific linguistic environments where misapplication occurs, exploring authorial intent behind certain DM choices, or comparing DM usage across different disciplines or journal accreditation levels to provide a more nuanced understanding of these crucial textual connectors.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.