ARTICLE

https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01525-0 OPEN

The use of discourse markers in argumentative

compositions by Jordanian EFL learners
Anas Huneety1, Asim Alkhawaldeh2 ✉, Bassil Mashaqba 1, Zainab Zaidan1 & Abdallah Alshdaifat3

The aim of the present study is to investigate the use of discourse markers (DMs) in the
argumentative compositions written by EFL learners at two academic stages (sophomores
1234567890():,;

and seniors) majoring in English at the Hashemite University, Jordan. The significance of this
study springs from its focus on the use of DMs in Jordanian EFL learners’ argumentative
writings. Employing an integrated research method of qualitative and quantitative analysis,
the findings revealed that both groups of participants used the same types of DMs with
varying degree of frequency, namely, elaborative, contrastive, reason, inferential, conclusive,
and exemplifier DMs, respectively. The sophomores were observed to employ a relatively
higher number of DMs compared to the seniors, which may be ascribed to some redundant
instances of DMs. The elaborative, contrastive, and reason types were the most widely used,
while inferentials, conclusives and exemplifiers appeared infrequently in both groups. The
analysis of individual DMs displayed that the DMs ‘and’, ‘because’, and ‘but’ were the pre-
dominant across the seniors and sophomores’ argumentative texts. This overuse of these
DMs may be due to the influence of L1 of the participants and the popularity of these DMs
among students and teachers of English. Additionally, the participants showed a low profi-
ciency in using DMs since they overused largely a restricted variety of DMs at the expense of
others that would be expected in the argumentative writing; some DMs were noticed either
to be underused or absent. The results of Pearson’s r correlation test indicated that there was
a weak positive but significant correlation between the writing quality and the use of DMs.
This may be taken as a predictor of the writing quality in argumentative compositions by EFL.
Pedagogically, the study emphasizes the significance of teaching DMs, where EFL learners
should be taught how to use them appropriately to avoid any transference of their L1. Further
research on DMs in argumentative writings in different levels of proficiency is recommended.

1 Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Arts, The Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan. 2 Department of English Language and Literature,

Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Al-alBayt University, Mafraq, Jordan. 3 Mohammed Bin Zayed University for Humanities, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
✉email: [email protected]

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:41 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01525-0 1

ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01525-0

R
Introduction
ecently, there has been a thriving interest in academic 3. Is there any correlation between the number of DMs
research on linguistic items such as ‘but’, ‘and’, ‘therefore’, employed in the text and the quality of writing?
‘because’ (widely referred to as discourse markers) that The significance of this paper is generally two-fold. First, the
signal the underlying relations that bind units of discourse into a insights obtained from the statistical and qualitative findings on
larger cohesive and coherent text (e.g., Aijmer, 2002; how DMs are used by the respective EFL learners would be of
Alkhawaldeh, 2018; Andersen, 2000; Beeching, 2016; Blakemore, some use by teachers and instructors at universities to improve
2002; Erman, 1987; Fedriani & Sansó, 2017; Foolen, 1996; Fraser, the quality of the learners’ writing performance. Second, the
1999; González, 2004; Heine et al. 2021; Huneety et al., 2017; expected findings may offer a better understanding of the cor-
Jucker, 1997; Lenk, 1998; Lewis, 2003; Olmen et al., 2021; relation between the use of DMs and the quality of writing in
Traugott, 1995). Discourse markers (DMs henceforth) count a Jordanian EFL argumentative composition.
functional category that do not typically alter the propositional
content of an utterance but play largely an important role in the
structuring and organization of discourse. This role that reflects Review of the literature
an interpretive relationship between the segment hosting them This literature review focuses on the general use of discourse
and the prior utterance can be manifested by means of elabor- markers and the studies conducted on the discourse of EFL learners.
ating or commenting on the prior discourse, indicating a contrast Numerous studies have been conducted on DMs and many
between the foregoing and forthcoming discourse, drawing researchers have investigated the use of DMs by EFL learners in
attention to what is next, reformulating an idea, or highlighting a particular e.g., (Martínez, 2004; Jalilifar, 2008; Chapetón Castro,
proposition (Heine et al. 2021). 2009; Aidinlou and Mehr, 2012; Kalajahi, Abdullah, and Baki 2012;
DMs constitute an indispensably fundamental part of language Povolná, 2012; Daif-Allah and Albesher, 2013.
use, and their pervasiveness in speech and writing makes them a Many of these studies compared the use of DMS by EFL
worthwhile object of study. The importance of exploring DMs lies in learners with that of English learners. These studies have
the fact that they aid discourse cohesion and coherence-they serve as emphasized the poor writing skills of EFL learners, which may be
cohesive devices that mark underlying connections between propo- partially attributed to their poor usage of DMs. For example,
sitions (Al-Khawaldeh, 2018). It has been argued that the use of DMs Altenberg and Tapper (1998) observed that advanced Swedish
facilitates the hearer/ reader’s task of interpreting and understanding learners of English underused DMs in their compositions com-
the speaker/writer’s utterances (Müller, 2005; Aijmer 2015; Schiffrin, pared to English native students. The most commonly used DMs
1987; Blakemore, 2002; Huneety, et al., 2019). The adequate use of by Swedish learners were contrastive and inferential ones, while
DMs is pivotal in rendering texts (especially in the context of aca- summative DMs (e.g., in sum and short) were rarely used. In a
demic writing) comprehensible and effective. Academic writing that recent study, Tapper (2005) compared the use of DMs by Swedish
employs DMs is perceived to be more logical, persuasive, and EFL learners of English to American university students. The
authoritative (Mauranen, 1993). It thus appears that examining DMs findings reported that the Swedish learners of English used far
in learners’ writing, as the goal of the present study, is a compelling more DMs in their essays than their American counterpart. This
task for the applied linguistics researcher (Siepmann, 2005). overuse of DMs by Swedish leaners of English may be a result of
Many studies have highlighted that the use of DMs poses a their native language transference which contains more DMs than
challenge for EFL learners, especially in writing at colleges and English does as reported in Altenberg and Tapper (1998). Müller
universities. This would be ascribed to a variety of reasons: (i) (2005) discussed the use of four DMS (well, you know, like and
overuse, underuse, and misuse of DMs are likely to affect the so) in the speech of German EFL learners’ and native speakers of
readability and comprehensibility of the text; (ii) the use of DMs English. Findings showed that although German speakers used
is sensitive to text type (e.g., DMs used in argumentative writing the four discourse markers, some functions were mainly
differs from those used in expository writing); and (iii) the use of unknown to German speakers who also employed new functions.
DMs, particularly for EFL learners, tends to vary across languages Fung and Carter (2007) examined the use of discourse markers by
and cultures (see Altenberg & Tapper, 1998). Hong Kong learners of English and English speakers. They found
The present study investigates the use of DMs in argumentative that Hong Kong learners widely employed referentially functional
texts written by two groups of learners at two different levels of DMs (e.g., and, but, because, OK and so), yet they underused a
proficiency (sophomores and seniors) at the Hashemite Uni- number of DMs such as really, sort of, I see.
versity in Jordan. The reason beyond the choice of this type of Various studies have examined the use and frequency of DMs
writing is that it has been characterized as the hardest type in and their impact of the quality of writing. Some of these studies
both L1 and L2, in comparison with other types of writings such demonstrated that the frequency of DMs was not an indicator of
as narrative and expository (see Yang and Sun 2012). writing quality. For example, Alattar and Abu-Ayyash (2020)
To achieve the purpose of the present examination, an inte- dealt with the use of conjunctions as cohesive devices in Emirati
grated method of research analysis was employed: quantitative students’ argumentative essays. The study found no positive
and qualitative. Following Altenberg and Tapper (1998), the correlation between the Emirati students’ use of DMs and the
comparison in terms of similarities and differences between quality of their argumentative writing. That is, in many essays,
these two groups of learners was concerned mainly with the though many participants employed a wide range of DMs cor-
overuse and underuse of DMs. These two terms are used in our rectly, the quality of the texts was poor because it was difficult to
analysis as purely descriptive labels in the data under examina- understand these texts. Similarly, dealing with the cohesive
tion. Therefore, the misuse of DMs with regard to their incorrect devices, including connectives in papers written by Chinese
usage (grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.) is beyond the scope learners, Zhang (2021) reported no link between unity of the text
of the present study. Given that, the study seeks to explore the and writing quality.
following research questions: However, some studies reported a correlation between the
1. Which types of DMs are more or less frequent in argu- overuse of DMs. For example, examining the use of DMs in the
mentative compositions used by EFL learners? expository writings by third-year and fourth-year Spanish EFL
2. Are there any significant differences between sophomores learners, Martinez (2016) found a positive significant correlation
and seniors in the use of DMs in their writing? relationship between the density of DMs and the quality of

2 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:41 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01525-0

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01525-0 ARTICLE

writing. They also revealed that there was little variety in the use because,…etc.), adverbs (e.g., furthermore, however,…etc.), pre-
of DMs across the both groups of participants. positional phrases (e.g., on the contrary, on the other hand, as a
In the Turkish context, Uzun (2017) examined the use of DMs result …etc. (Fraser, 1999). DMs generally tend to occur in
in argumentative essays written by Turkish EFL learners. In this segment-initial position (to introduce an utterance). However,
study, the additive DMs were the most frequent type in the data they may also occur medially and finally (ibid).
while adversative and causal types were by far less frequently In this study, six categories of DMs were included for the
used. The findings showed a very weak positive relation between purpose of analysis. Four of them were adopted from Fraser
the essay scores and writing quality. (1999): contrastive DMs (although, however, yet, etc.) elaborative
Some studies examined the use and frequency of DMs in DMs (and, moreover, in addition, etc.), inferential DMs (there-
particular types of texts, showing how each text type prefers some fore, as a result, etc.), and reason DMs (because, since, etc.). The
types of DMs. For example, Rahimi (2011) made a comparison other two categories were suggested by Martínez (2004), namely,
between Iranian EFL learners’ argumentative and expository conclusives (in conclusion, in short, etc.) and exemplifiers (for
writings. He found that in both types of writing elaborative and example, for instance, etc.).
contrastive DMs were the most frequently used. In another study,
Doró (2016) conducted a study on DMs in argumentative essays
written by third-year students of English in the Hungarian uni- Methods and material
versity. The study revealed that where the types of DMs with a The participants of the present study were selected from two
high percentage of occurrence were elaborative, contrastive and different levels of proficiency (sophomores and seniors) at the
inferential DMs, students tended to underuse summative mar- Hashemite University, Jordan. All of them were EFLs (their native
kers, especially at the end of their essays. Similarly, Ghanbari et al. language is Arabic), aging between 18 and 22. During the spring
(2016) drew a comparison between Iranian EFL learners aca- semester 2019–20, a total of 120 students were selected randomly
demic and non-academic writings. It was reported that that in from eight classes.
academic writings, elaborative and inferential DMs were the The students were divided into two groups: the first group
predominate, whereas in non-academic writings only elaborative consists of 60 sophomores who all passed basic grammar course
DMs were the most commonly used. In a study on DMs in and paragraph writing course, and the second group consists of
argumentative and narrative texts written by native and non- 60 seniors who all passed advanced grammar course and essay
native undergraduates, Alghamdi (2014) reported that DMs with writing course. These courses were based on to select the parti-
a high frequency were elaborative, contrastive, and reason, and cipants of the study, where the former two courses are required
there was no significant difference in the use of DMs between for sophomores and the latter two courses are required for
both types of writing in the two groups. seniors. Grammar courses help students gain systemic knowl-
An examination of the above literature shows that DMs were edge of English grammar (the basic and complex grammatical
investigated in different contexts and in different languages. In structure of sentences), meanwhile writing courses improve
the context of Jordan, there have been two studies addressing the students’ writing ability skills (successful paragraph and essay
use of DMs by Jordanian EFL learners: Ali and Mahadin (2015) development)
and Asassfeh et al. (2013). Ali and Mahadin (2015) studied the In order to ensure the homogeneity of the participants in the
use of DMs in expository writing of advanced EFL learners and study and to cover all proficiency levels to get realistic results, the
intermediate EFL learners at University of Jordan. The study has participants were of different gender (male and female) and GPA
found out that the proficiency level of the student affects the use (ranging from good to excellent). The data of the present study is
of DMs. Asassfeh et al. (2013) have investigated the use of logical argumentative texts with a minimum word-count of 250 words
connectors in expository writings written by Jordanian English- on the online-learning. The following task was given to the
major undergraduates representing the four academic years. They participants:
have concluded that students use logical connectors a lot but in
an inaccurate way. This study aims to fill in a gap in the literature ‘Online education is rapidly increasing in popularity. Some
by examining the use of DMs in a new type of texts, i.e., argu- people think that online teaching is as effective as in-person
mentative compositions, by EFL students. To that end, a sample instruction, while others think online teaching is inferior.
of 120 students were asked to write compositions that were then Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.’
analyzed in terms of the use of DMs. What follows is a pre- This topic was chosen in particular because the Hashemite
sentation of the methods employed to collect and analyze data. University students have experienced online learning over the
Results then presented and discussed. The study concludes with past few years. The onset of Covid-19 pandemic has led to such a
some concluding remarks and recommendation for future significant development in online learning. Therefore, we believed
studies. that the students are able to argue about this topic easily because
they are aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the issue
(For details, see also Abdalhadi, et al., 2022).
Theoretical Framework The researchers used a mixed approach in the present study to
This study draws mainly on Fraser’s (1999) broad characteriza- address the above-mentioned research questions. After a brief
tion of DMs, particularly his taxonomy of DMs. This is because introduction on the importance of online education in Jordan),
Fraser based his insights on other prominent studies on DMs the students were given 40 min to write the task. All of the 120
(e.g., Schiffrin 1987, Blakemore 2002, Redeker (2006)), and his paragraphs were examined. The process of identification of DMs
description has been used for written discourse. Fraser (1999) in the compiled data draws mainly on Fraser’s (1999, 2006) list of
defines DMs as lexical expressions that mostly signal a relation- DMs, as presented in Table 1. The reported DMs were calculated
ship between S2 and S1, where S2 is the discourse segment which in terms of frequency. The wordsmith concordance software
hosts the DM as a part of it, and S1 is the prior discourse seg- (wordsmith tool 4.0) was used for scanning DMs occurrences and
ment. Lenk (1998) refers to this function as the prominent textual generating concordance lists of all DMs detected in the data. For
function of DMs that indicates the kinds of relations existing interrater reliability, the compositions were evaluated and scored
between different parts of the discourse. DMs come from dif- out of (20 points) by two experienced raters, who are instructors
ferent grammatical classes, such as conjunctions (e.g., but, also, of English. The essays scoring greater than 12 points were

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:41 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01525-0 3

ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01525-0

Table 1 Categories of DMs. Table 2 Frequency of DMs classes.

Category of DMs Examples DMs category Sophomores Seniors

Contrastive Although, but, however, in contrast, on the other Elaborative 207 (49.9) 155 (40)
hand, yet. Contrastive 76 (18.3) 104 (26.9)
Elaborative Also, and, besides, furthermore, in addition. Reason 68 (16.4) 51 (13.2)
Inferential Accordingly, as a result, because of, therefore, thus. Exemplifiers 27(6.5) 34(8.8)
Reason After all, because, for this/that reason, since. Conclusive 21(5.1) 31(8)
Conclusive In conclusion, in short, in sum, to sum up. Inferential 16 (3.8) 12 (3.1)
Exemplifier for example, for instance, such as. Total 415(100) 387(100)

assessed as of good quality. The agreement index between the

Table 3 Frequency of individual DMs.
raters reached 95%, which indicates that the scoring was highly
consistent among the two raters.
To obtain statistical values concerning writing quality, a Pearson’s DMs Sophomores Seniors
r correlation test was applied to find out whether the frequency of However 11(2.7) 17(4.4)
the use of DMs and writing quality are correlated or not. Pearson’s r Although 3(0.7) 6(1.5)
correlation is used to measure the strength of a linear correlation But 40(9.6) 35(9)
between two variables, where the value r = 1 means a positive linear Yet 1(0.2) 5(1.3)
In contrast 1(0.2) 14(3.6)
correlation, r = −1 means a negative linear correlation, and r = 0
On the other hand 20(4.8) 27(7)
means no linear correlation. Finally, to compare the results of both In addition 19(4.7) 20(5.2)
groups of students, the means and standard deviations were mea- Also 24(5.8) 27(7)
sured and an independent-samples t-test was carried out to test the And 150(36.1) 90(23.2)
significance of difference between the two groups. Besides 6(1.5) 6(1.5)
Furthermore 8(1.9) 12(3.1)
Results and discussion Accordingly 3(0.7) 1(0.3)
Research question 1 As a result 5(1.2) 0(0)
Which types of DMs are more or less frequent in argumentative Because of 2(0.5) 8(2.1)
compositions used by EFL learners?. The quantitative analysis of Therefore 3(0.7) 0(0)
Thus 3(0.7) 3(0.8)
data by means of the Wordsmith concordance software showed
After all 0(0) 3(0.8)
that the entire data set had a sum of 802 occurrences of 25 Because 59(14.2) 41(10.6)
different DMs in the argumentative compositions. Tables 2 and 3 For this/that reason 9(2.2) 7(1.8)
show that the participants in the present study used a number of In conclusion 14(3.4) 22(5.7)
DMs with various rates. All the types of DMs adopted for the In short 4(1) 2(0.5)
present investigation were found to be used by the participants of To sum up 3(0.7) 7(1.8)
the present study: elaborative, contrastive, reason, inferential, For example 15(3.6) 10(2.6)
conclusive, and exemplifier. Although some DMs are by nature Such as 11(2.7) 24(6.2)
poly-functional, particularly ‘and’, all DMs detected in the present For instance 1(0.2) 0(0)
data were observed to serve only one function. All 415(100) 387(100)
It can be noticed that both groups used the same types of DMs
with varying frequencies. The number of DMs used by both groups
revealed that there was no statistical difference, where the total search about anything in it, and we can watch the online
frequency of DMs in the seniors’ argumentative texts was 415 course more than one time to understand what it is talking
occurrences and 387 in their sophomores’ counterparts. The reason about”.
why seniors employed a less number of DMs than did the “Classroom room learning have advantage like you can ask
sophomores may be attributed to the notion that the seniors tended your teacher about anything you can’t understand. and in the
to avoid overusing or redundant instances of DMs observed in the same minute, you can share your information and make a
sophomores ‘compositions. This finding is in line with Altenberg & conversation about it, and the teacher gives you homework to
Tapper (1998), who found that the advanced Swedish learners of improve your skill.”
English used a less number of DMs than non-advanced ones.
Moreover, in Yang and Sun (2012) on argumentative essays by As shown in Table 2, elaborative DMs appeared to be the
Chinese learners of English at two levels of proficiency, sophomores predominate, compared to other types of DMs, in both groups of
overused DMs more frequently than did seniors. Put it differently, learners (sophomores = 49.9% and seniors = 40%). Contrastive
the sophomores slightly outperformed the seniors in terms of the DMs ranked the second in the data (sophomores = 18.3% and
frequency of DMs, which may be due to some redundant instances seniors = 26.9%), followed by reason markers (sophomores =
of DMs, where some DMs were unnecessary and their presence 16.4% and seniors = 13.2%), exemplifiers (sophomores = 6.5%
contributed nothing to the text coherence as seen in the examples and seniors = 8.8%), and conclusive markers (sophomores =
below. Overall, it can be discerned that both sophomores and seniors 5.1% and seniors = 8%). The least frequently used type is
had difficulties with using DMs in their argumentative writing in inferential DMs (sophomores = 3.8% and seniors = 3.1%). It is
terms of overusing, underusing, omitting, or redundancy. Aijmer evident that there was no difference in the rank order of the types
(2002) pointed out that learners may underuse or overuse certain of DMs used by both groups of learners.
forms in their writing in comparison with their native counterparts. The statistical findings revealed, as displayed in Table 2, that
the three types of DMs (namely elaborative, contrastive, and
“Online learning depends on internet and the student himself. reason) had a high frequency in the argumentative texts under
And online learning gives us more information and we can exploration, in contrast to other types (exemplifier, conclusive,

4 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:41 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01525-0

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01525-0 ARTICLE

and inferential). Elaborative DMs accounted for the largest ‘also’, ‘furthermore’, ‘in addition’, compared to the sophomores,
percentage of use, followed by contrastive DMs and reason DMs. who used ‘and’ more repeatedly in their texts. That is, there is a
This is in line with Alghamdi’s findings (2014), which reported common tendency among seniors to employ more frequently
that these three categories were utilized at higher rates than other diverse elaborative DMs than sophomores.
DMs in argumentative compositions in his comparison between As for the contrastive DMs that came the second in frequency in
NS and NNS students in their narrative and argumentative texts. both groups, they were frequently used in comparison with other
Likewise, Rahimi (2011) reported in his comparison between DMs such as, inferential and conclusive categories (the sophomores
argumentative and expository writings by Iranian EFL learners 18.3% and the seniors 26.9%). By contrast, Jalilfar (2008) reported
that elaborative and contrastive DMs were used at higher rates that the contrastive DMs were the least in the essays written by the
than other DMs in argumentative compositions. intermediate and advanced EFL learners. According to the statistical
This high percentage of the occurrence of elaborative, results, the contrastive ‘but’ was the highest among this class, and it
contrastive, and reason DMs can be attributed to the argumenta- was almost equally used by the sophomores and seniors, ranking
tive mode of the respective texts written by the sophomores and third in the total occurrences of the DMs in the data (9.6% and 9%,
seniors, where they require to employ such DMs for adding new respectively). This high frequency of ‘but’ may be attributed to the
arguments, contrasting ideas, and justifying standpoints. While it fact that it is very simple in its orthographic structure and
was found that the most frequently used types were elaborative semantically unambiguous, which renders it easy for learners to
DMs, followed by contrastive DMs in the present study, Polish use (Djigunović and Vikov, 2011). Unlike other types of DMs, a
undergraduate learners of English were reported to make more variety of contrastive DMs (‘but’, ‘however’, ‘although’, ‘yet’, and ‘on
use of the contrastive type than the elaborative one in their the other hand’) were employed by both groups of learners rather
argumentative essays (Sanczyk, 2010). than relying on a very limited number of DMs as the case with the
A further analysis of the DMs in the data under examination class of reason DMs in this study. Interestingly, the seniors made
revealed that elaborative type ranked by far the highest in terms of more use of the contrastive DMs than did the sophomores, which
frequency. It made up 49.9 % of the entire occurrence of DMs in indicates that they have more proficiency and knowledge about the
the sophomores’ text and 40% in the seniors’ text. Among this nature of argumentative texts. Given that the argumentation is
type, the most commonly used DM was, as shown in Table 3, the typically marked by showing a contrast, opposition, and juxtaposi-
marker ‘and’, while the other elaborative DMs detected in the data tion between the argument and counterargument in order to
(‘in addition’, ‘also’, ‘besides’, and ‘furthermore’) showed a low convince the reader/listener of the acceptability of the controversial
frequency, less than 7% for each one in the sophomores and standpoint at issue (Eemeren, 2021), it was observed that some
seniors’ data. Table 3 displays that the elaborative DM ‘and’ contrastive DMs that usually appear in argumentative academic
appeared 150 times with an average of 36.1% by the sophomores, compositions such as ‘nevertheless’, ‘nonetheless’, ‘whereas’, ‘con-
and 90 times with a percentage of 23.2% by the seniors. This is a versely’, and ‘despite’ were never used by both groups.
relatively high percentage that a single item appeared to be taking Ranking the third largest category in both groups, the category
up almost third of the entire frequency of DMs in the sophomore’s of reason DMs was relatively moderately used by both groups
argumentative texts and around quarter in the seniors’ texts. (16.4% by the sophomores, 13.2% by the seniors). Dissimilar to
The overuse of ‘and’ in both groups is not surprising for two these findings, it was reported that reason DMs were the most
reasons. On one hand, preceding research findings report that EFL widely used by Turkish learners of English in their argumentative
learners (regardless of their L1) are likely to employ more ‘ands’ essays (Altunay, 2009). Among this class, the most commonly
than native speakers of English (Taweel, 2020). On the other hand, used one is ‘because’, contrast to other used ones, (after all, and
native speakers of Arabic are inclined to use more ‘ands’ as a result for this/that reason) which were highly underused. Across the
of interference of L1, Arabic, which is characterized with a high both groups, it was the second highest DM, making up 14.2% by
frequency of the additive marker wa:w ‘and’. sophomores and 10.6% by seniors. One DM, namely, ‘after all’,
This overreliance on ‘and’ may signal a low proficiency in the was used only by the seniors (0.8%), while other DMs, such as
use of DMs in the students’ argumentative writing (Uzun, 2017). ‘since’ was totally absent in both groups. All in all, both groups of
Strikingly, some elaborative DMs such as ‘moreover’, ‘as well’, learners tend highly to overuse ‘because’ at the expense of other
‘too’, ‘or’, ‘in other words’, and ‘further’ were never used in the reason DMs, which were largely underused or absent. This could
data. Thus, the overuse of ‘and’ at the expense of other elaborative be argued that the learners heavily relied on ‘because’ to
DMs that were either rarely used or neglected indicates that the compensate for their unfamiliarity with other reason DMs. These
learners have a low proficiency level in using DMs. results most probably reflect that this type of DMs poses a
More elaborately, the overuse of ‘and’ can be due, to a greater difficulty for the subjects of the present study.
extent, to the negative transfer from Arabic as the mother tongue of Less frequently used types in the data were conclusive and
the leaners, where the DM ‘wa’ ‘and’, in Arabic, is poly-functional exemplifier DMs. The former was used 5.1% by the sophomores
that it serves various functions such as, in addition to elaborative, and 8% by the seniors whereas, the latter was used 6.5% by the
contrastive, causal, and temporal (Hamed, 2014, Arabi & Ali, 2014). sophomores and 8.8% by the seniors. Only three conclusive DMs
However, it seems that the seniors employed ‘and’ less (‘in conclusion’, ‘in short’, and ‘to sum up’) were employed by
frequently than the sophomores who largely overused it. This both the sophomores and seniors. Comparing the both groups,
indicates that there was some kind of development/ improvement the conclusive type had a higher frequency in the seniors’
in the proficiency level of the seniors as they incorporated other argumentative texts than the sophomores’ texts. The DM ‘in
elaborative DMs more frequently than those by the sophomores, conclusion’ was the predominate one among this type, while the
reducing dependence on ‘and’ in favor of other DMs. Moreover, it others were mostly underutilized, where its total frequency in the
is worth mentioning that EFL learners used largely elaborative whole data in both groups was 3.4% by sophomores and 5.7 % by
DMs in argumentative compositions in an attempt to explain, the seniors. Concerning exemplifiers, like the conclusive types,
support, and develop their point of view in details, thus, make only three DMs (‘for example’, ‘for instance’, and ‘such as’)
their thesis statement more well-expressed and persuasive. appeared in the data. The findings showed that the most
Overall measures of DMs in both groups have shown that there commonly used one in this class was ‘for example’ in the
is a relative decrease in the occurrences of the elaborative DM sophomores’ texts and ‘such as’ in their counterparts. It seems
‘and’ by seniors and increase of other elaborative DMs such as that these two categories appeared more in the seniors’

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:41 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01525-0 5

ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01525-0

argumentative compositions. This evidently indicates that there is Table 4 The results of use of DMs in argumentative
a development in the seniors’ proficiency level as compared to compositions.
their counterparts regarding using exemplifiers to give examples
as evidence in order to support their argument and conclusives to
M SS SD Df N
signal that they have reached the end of the composition and will
summarize what has been argued for or against. Sophomores 69.17 25970.83 72.07 5 6
As given in Table 2, the least frequently used type by both groups Seniors 64.50 14741.50 54.29 5 6
of learners was inferential DMs, accounting for 3.8% by the Abbreviations: M mean, SS sum of squares, SD standard deviation, Df degrees of freedom, N
sophomores and 3.1% by the seniors. This indicates that there was sample size. Note: *Significant difference at p < 0.05.
no significant difference between these groups of students with
regard to using this type of markers. The analysis showed that the
inferential DMs found in the data include ‘thus’, ‘therefore’, ‘because Table 5 Frequency of DM occurrences in argumentative
of’, ‘as a result’, and ‘accordingly’. In the inferential category, the compositions.
DMs ‘as a result’ had the highest frequency in the sophomores’ data,
but it was totally neglected in the seniors’ data. While ‘because of’ Grade Frequency and (percentage)
was the least frequently used by sophomores in the inferential Sophomores 415(51.7)
category, it appeared the most frequent one by the seniors. Overall, Seniors 387(48.3)
the students here displayed a tendency to underuse this type of DMs All 802(100)
that would be typical in English argumentative writing. This self-
evident underuse of inferential DMs in the data under consideration question of the present study, an independent-samples t-test was
indicates that the learners had insufficient knowledge as such DMs undertaken in order find whether there is any statistically sig-
are crucial in texts with argumentative mode. That is, it may be nificant difference between the sophomores and the seniors’ use
argued that inferential DMs are the most difficult to learn by of DMs in their argumentative written texts. As displayed in
Jordanian EFL learners. Table 4, the results of the respective test revealed no statistically
A closer analysis of the individual DMs used in the argumentative significant difference between the sophomores (M = 69.17,
texts written by sophomores and seniors revealed that the most SD = 72.07) and seniors (M = 64.50, SD = 54.29) in their use of
commonly used DMs across both groups of learners were ‘and’ DMs in argumentative papers; t(10) = 0.126, p = 0.901.
(36.1%) (23.2%), ‘because’ (14.2%) (10.6%), and ‘but’ (9.6%) (9%), More elaborately, the total occurrences of the DMs found
respectively. There were no differences in the frequency order of across argumentative compositions written by the two groups in
these three DMs between the two groups of leaners. However, they this study was 802, as clearly illustrated in Table 5 below, where
displayed some differences in the number of their occurrence in each they had a frequency of 415 occurrences in the sophomores’ texts
group. As shown in Table 3, ‘and’ as an elaborative DM was and 387 occurrences in the seniors’ texts. It can be seen that the
employed less frequently by the seniors (23.2%) than the frequency of DMs in the sophomores’ compositions was slightly
sophomores (36.1%). Although this shows that both groups higher than the seniors’. The present study conducted a lexical
overused this DM at the expense of other DMs, the seniors showed density test (a test used to measure the proportion of the content
less dependence on this marker in favor of other DMs, which reflects (lexical) words over the total words) to measure the proportion of
some improvement of their use of DMs, compared to their the DMs to the total number of words (the total number of words
counterparts. While ‘because’ made a percentage of 14.2% in the in the sophomores and seniors’ data is 8549 and 8991,
sophomores’ writing, it had less percentage in the seniors’ writings respectively) in the argumentative data under examination. The
(10.6). For the last highest DMs in the data, the contrastive ‘but’, it numerical results displayed that the lexical density (LD), which
was equally used by both groups (9.6% by the sophomores and 9% refers to the proportion of DMs to the total number of words, is
by the seniors). Other DMs occurred by far less frequently such as 4.8% in the sophomores’ writings and 4.3% in the seniors’
‘however’, ‘on the other hand’, and ‘furthermore’. Moreover, there writings. It has been reported that the density of DMs and quality
are some DMs that were rarely used by both groups of learners (e.g., of writing are positively related in EFL learners’ compositions
‘although’, ‘yet’, ‘besides’, ‘furthermore’) or were only used by one (Martínez, 2016). In this regard, the current results can, to some
group (‘as a result’, ‘therefore’, ‘after all’). Remarkably, it was found degree, may indicate that the participants showed a low
that an array of manifold DMs was never used neither by the proficiency in writing their argumentative texts. A number of
sophomores nor by the seniors (e.g., ‘hence’, ‘nonetheless’, ‘never- studies report that more proficient learners tend to use an
theless’, ‘despite’, ‘on the contrary’, ‘consequently’, ‘since’, ‘in other increased amount of DMs in their written texts (see Uzun, 2017).
words’). This can be interpreted that EFL learners tend to rely more
on DMs familiar to them from an early stage (Paquot, 2014). Such
findings are in agreement with Alghamdi (2014) that in each DM Research question 3
category, there are explicit overuse and underuse of some DMs in Is there any correlation between the number of DMs employed in
EFl argumentative writings. the text and the quality of writing?. With regard to the last question
On the ground of these results, it is justifiable to infer that since of the study concerning the relationship between the frequency of
both groups of learners in this study utilized frequently a very DMs and the quality of writing, a Pearson’s r correlation test was
limited number of DMs in their argumentative texts, they had a carried out to assess this relationship. As illustrated in Table 6, the
poor proficiency level of using DMs, compared to higher results displayed that the correlation between the frequency of DMs
proficient L1/ L2 writers (Zhang, 2021). The importance of such employed in the argumentative compositions written by the
findings stems from the fact that the quality of academic writing sophomores and their evaluation was weakly positively correlated,
can be evaluated based on lexical variety (Hinkel, 2004). r(58) = .32, p = 0.012. Likewise, the frequency of DMs and the
evaluation of the seniors’ writings were found to be weakly positively
correlated, r(58) = 0.42, p < 0.001. Based on the results obtained
Research question 2 from the present correlation test, it can be stated that a positive
Are there any significant differences between sophomores and correlation but significant (the sophomores 0.012656 and the seniors
seniors in the use of DMs in their writing?. To address the second .000764) was found between the total use of DMs and the quality

6 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:41 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01525-0

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01525-0 ARTICLE

Table 6 The results of Pearson’s r correlation test. writing in both argumentative texts written by the sophomores
and seniors.
Sophomores Seniors
Pedagogical implications. Based on the present findings on the
DMs Freq.
use of DMs in the sophomore and seniors’ argumentative writ-
Evaluation Pearson 0.3201 0.4228 ings, some pedagogical implications can be highlighted. As we
correlation have seen, the use of DMs in argumentative writings presents a
Sig. .012656* .000764**
challenge to EFL learners across different levels of proficiency.
N 60 60
Moreover, the analysis reveals that EFL learners demonstrate little
Abbreviations: Freq. frequency, Sig. significance, N the number of data points. Note: *The result variety in the use of DMs.
is significant at p < 0.05. **The result is significant at p < 0.01.
The inappropriate use of DMs should be attended to by both
instructors and learners. More focus should be placed on DMs
writing of the argumentative texts written by the participants of the and students should be exposed to more varied DMs. In other
present study. It can be suggested that the highly-rated argu- words, instructors of English should familiarize their students
mentative compositions tend to employ more DMs than did their with a wide variety of DMs and encourage learners to vary in
poorly-rated counterparts. their choice of DMs in their writings rather than relying on
Although the results of the present study revealed that there was a restricted range of DMs. To increase the quality of EFL
positive correlation between the two values at issue, the relationship argumentative writing, learners should be given more exercises
between the frequency of DMs and the evaluation was weak (for the on the functions of DMs and their role in creating and
nearer the value is to zero, the weaker the relationship). However, we maintaining the cohesion and coherence of text, especially, in
can infer that the frequency of DMs can be, to some extent, a academic writing (For details, see Guba et al., 2021). This would
potential predictor/ indicator of writing quality, that is, the higher help in the development of the EFL learners’ writing proficiency.
the number of DMs, the better the quality of writing. Such findings
are in line with the studies that support the existence of a positive
correlation between the deployment of DMs and the quality of Data availability
writing (Jin, 2001; Liu and Braine 2005, Yang and Sun 2012). This The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current
implies that EFL learners of both groups in this study still face some study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable
difficulties in using DMs in their argumentative writing. The absence request.
of significantly positive correlations between the quality of writing
and the frequency of DMs in the respective argumentative texts Received: 3 June 2022; Accepted: 17 January 2023;
reflects the students’ low-level proficiency in employing DMs.
However, it should be borne in mind that correlational tests do
not always suggest causation- that when two variables in tandem
do not necessarily indicate that one variable is affecting the other.
(Bruce &. Harper, 2012). References
Abdalhadi H, Al-Khawaldeh N, Al Huneety A, Mashaqba B (2022) A corpus-based
pragmatic analysis of jordanian’s Facebook status updates during COVID-19.
Ampersand, 100099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2022.100099
Conclusion
Aidinlou NA, Mehr HS (2012) The effect of discourse markers instruction on EFL
The present study examined the use of DMs in argumentative learners’ writing. World J Educ 2(2):10–16
writing by the seniors and sophomores majoring in English at the Aijmer K (2002) English discourse particles: evidence from a corpus. John Ben-
Hashemite university. These two groups of EFL learners repre- jamins, Amsterdam
sented two different level of proficiency. The findings revealed Aijmer K (2015) Analyzing discourse markers in spoken corpora: actually as a case
study. In: Baker P, McEnery T (eds) Corpora and discourse studies. Palgrave
both groups used the same types of DMs with varying degree of
Macmillan, London, p 88–109
frequency: elaborative, contrastive, reason, inferential, conclusive, Alattar F, Abu-Ayyash E (2020) The use of conjunctive cohesive devices in Emirati
and exemplifier. The seniors were found to employ more slightly students’ argumentative essays. Br J English Linguist 8(1):9–25
DMs than did the sophomores, which may be a result of over- Alghamdi EA (2014) Discourse markers in ESL personal narrative and argu-
using some DMs and unnecessary instances of DMs. There was mentative papers: a qualitative and quantitative analysis. Int J Humanit Soc
Sci 4(4):294–305
no statistically difference in the frequency of DMs by both groups.
Ali E, Mahadin R (2015) The use of interpersonal discourse markers by students of
The types of DMs that appeared commonly were elaborative, English at the university of Jordan. Arab World English Journal 6(7):306–319
contrastive and reason. However, conclusives and exemplifiers Alkhawaldeh A (2018) Discourse functions of Kama in Arabic journalistic dis-
were infrequently used. Across the both group of data, the course from the perspective of rhetorical structure theory. International
elaborative type of DMs was the predominate. The analysis of Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature 7(3):206–213
Al-Khawaldeh, Asim (2018) Uses of the discourse marker wallahi in Jordanian
individual DMs reported that the DMs ‘and’, ‘because’, and
spoken Arabic. A pragma-discourse perspective. International Journal of
‘but’ were the most widely used in both groups. It also reported Humanities and Social sciences 8(6):114–123
that both groups over-relied on a very limited number of DMs Altenberg B, Tapper M (1998) The use of adverbial connectors in advanced
in their argumentative writing at the expense of other DMs, Swedish learners’ written English. In: Granger S (ed) Learner English on
which reflects a low proficiency in using DMs. computer. Addison Wesley Longman Limited, Harlow, p 80–93
Altunay D (2009) Use of connectives in written discourse: a study at an ELT
Moreover, there are some DMs that were rarely used by both
Department Turkey. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Anadolu University
groups of learners (e.g., although, yet, besides, furthermore) or Andersen G (2000) Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation: a relevance-
were only used by one group (as a result, therefore, after all). theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. Benjamins, Amsterdam
Remarkably, it was found that an array of manifold DMs was Arabi H, Ali N (2014) ‘Explication of conjunction errors in a corpus of written
never used neither by the sophomores nor by the seniors (e.g., discourse by Sudanese English majors’. Arab World Engl J 4(5):111–130
hence, nonetheless, nevertheless, despite, on the contrary, con- Asassfeh SM, Alshboul SS, Al-Shaboul YM (2013) Distribution and appropriate-
ness of use of logical connectors in the academic writing of Jordanian
sequently, since, in other words). English-major undergraduates. J Educ Psychol Sci 222(1259):1–46
The findings indicated that there was a weak positive but sig- Beeching Kate (2016) Pragmatic markers in British English—meaning in social
nificant correlation between the use of DMs and the quality of interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:41 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01525-0 7

ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01525-0

Blakemore D (2002) Relevance and linguistic meaning: the semantics and prag- Müller S (2005) Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse.
matics of discourse markers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge John Benjamins Publishing Co, Amsterdam
Bruce T, Harper B (2012) Conducting educational research. Rowman & Littlefield Olmen D, Šinkūnienė J (2021). Pragmatic markers and peripheries. Amsterdam,
Publishers, Inc, New York John Benjamins Publishing company
Chapetón Castro CM (2009) The use and functions of discourse markers in EFL Paquot M (2014) Academic vocabulary in learner writing: from extraction to
classroom interaction. Profile Issues Teach Prof Dev 11:57–78 analysis. Continuum, London
Daif-Allah AS, Albesher K (2013) The use of discourse markers in paragraph Povolná R (2012) Causal and contrastive discourse markers in novice academic
writings: the case of preparatory year program students in Qassim University. writing. Brno Studies in English. 38(2):131–148
Engl Lang Teach 6(9):217–227 Rahimi M (2011) Discourse markers in argumentative and expository writing of
Djigunović M, Vikov Gloria (2011) Acquisition of discourse markers: evidence Iranian EFL learners. World J Engl Lang 1(2):68
from EFL writing. Seraz 55:255–278 Redeker G (2006) Discourse markers as attentional cues at discourse transi-
Doró K (2016) Linking adverbials in EFL undergraduate argumentative essays: a tions. In: Fischer K (ed) Approaches to discourse particles. Elsevier,
diachronic corpus study. In: Lehmann M, Lugossy R, Horváth J (eds) Amsterdam, 339–358
Empirical studies in English applied linguistics. Lingua Franca Csport,Uni- Sanczyk A (2010) Investigating argumentative essays of English undergraduates
versity of Pecs, p. 152–165 studying in Poland as regards their use of cohesive devices. M.A thesis,
Eemeren F (2021) Characterizing argumentative style: the case of KLM and the University of Oslo
destructed squirrels; In: Boogaart R, Jansen H, Van Leeuwen M (eds) The Schiffrin D (1987) Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
language of argumentation. Springer, Switzerland Siepmann D (2005) Discourse markers across languages: a contrastive study of second-
Erman B (1987) Pragmatic expressions in English: a study of you know, you see level discourse markers in native and non-native text. Routledge, New York
and i mean in face-to-face conversation. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Tapper M (2005) Connectives in advanced Swedish EFL learners’ written English-
Stockholm Studies in English 69. Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm preliminary results. Working Papers Engl Linguist 5:116–144
Fedriani C, Sansó A (2017) Pragmatic markers, discourse markers and modal Taweel A (2020) Discourse markers in the academic writing of Arab students of
particles: new perspectives. John Benjamins Publishing company, Amster- English: a corpus-based approach. Theory Pract Lang Stud 10(5):569–575
dam/Philadelphia Traugott EG (1995) The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory
Foolen A (1996) Pragmatic particles. In: Verschueren J. et al. (eds) Handbook of of grammaticalization. Paper given at the 12th International Conference on
pragmatics. Benjamins, Amsterdam Historical Linguistics, Manchester, 13–18 August
Fraser B (1999) What are discourse markers? J Pragmatics 31(7):931–952 Uzun K (2017) The use of conjunctions and its relationship with argumentative
Fraser B (2006) Towards a theory of discourse markers. In: Kerstin F(ed) writing performance in an EFL setting. J Teach Engl Spec Acad Purposes
Approaches to discourse particles. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 189–204 V5(N2):307–315
Fung L, Carter R (2007) Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner Yang W, Sun Y (2012) The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by
use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics 28:410–439 Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguist Educ 23(1):31–48.
Ghanbari N, Dehghani T, Shamsaddini MR (2016) Discourse markers in academic https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.09.004. MarchppScienceDirect
and non-academic writing of Iranian EFL Learners. Theory Pract Lang Stud Zhang Y (2021) Adversative and concessive conjunctions in EFL writing. Springer,
6(7):1451–1459 Singapore
González M (2004) Pragmatic markers in oral narrative: the case of english and
catalan. Benjamins, Amsterdam
Guba MNA, Mashaqba B, Huneety A, AlHajEid O (2021) Attitudes toward Jor- Competing interests
danian Arabic-accented English among native and non-native speakers of The authors declare no competing interests.
English. ELOPE: English Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries
18(2):9–29 Ethical approval
Hamed M (2014) ‘conjunctions in argumentative writing of Libyan tertiary stu- The methodology for this study was approved by Research Ethics Panel of the Hashemite
dents’. Engl Lang Teach 7(3):108–120 University (Ethics approval number:1/2022/2023).
Heine B, Kaltenböck G, Kuteva T, Haiping L (2021) The rise of discourse markers.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hinkel E (2004) Teaching Academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in voca- Informed Consent
bulary and grammar. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, United States of America Voluntary informed consent was obtained from all participants after we made sure that
Huneety A, Mashaqba B, AlOmari M, Zuraiq W, Alshboul S (2019) Patterns of they were aware of the process in which they were involved. The participants were fully
lexical cohesion in Arabic newspaper editorials. Jordan Journal of Modern informed of the aims of the task and that their written texts would be only used for
Languages and Literature 11(3):273–296 research purpose.
Huneety A, Mashaqba B, Al-Shboul SSY, Alshdaifat, A T (2017) A contrastive
study of cohesion in Arabic and English religious discourse. International
Journal of Applied linguistics and English Literature 6(3):116–122
Additional information
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Asim Alkhawaldeh.
Jalilifar A (2008) Discourse markers in composition writings: the case of Iranian
learners of english as a foreign language. Engl Lang Teach 1(2):114–122
Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.nature.com/reprints
Jin W (2001) A Quantitative study of cohesion in Chinese graduate students’ writing:
variations across genres and proficiency levels. Paper presented at the Sympo-
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
sium on Second Language Writing at Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Jucker A (1997) The discourse marker well in the history of english. Engl Lang
Linguist 1:1–110
Kalajahi S, Abdullah ANB, Baki R (2012) Constructing an organized and coherent
text: how discourse markers are viewed by Iranian post-graduate students. Int
J Humanit Soc Sci 2(9):196–202 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Lenk U (1998) Discourse markers and global coherence in conversation. J Prag- Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
matics 30:245–257 adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
Lewis DM (2003). Rhetorical motivations for the emergence of discourse particles, appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
with special reference to English of course. In: van der Wouden T, Foolen A, Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party
Van de Craen P (eds) Particles. Belgian J Linguist 16:79–91 material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless
Liu M, Braine G (2005) Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
Chinese undergraduates. System 33(4):623–636 article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
Martinez AC (2016) Conjunctions in the writing of students enrolled on bilingual regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
and non-bilingual programs. Revista de Educación 371:100–125 the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/
Martínez ACL (2004) Discourse markers in the expository writing of Spanish licenses/by/4.0/.
university students. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas
para Fines Específicos (AELFE) 8:63–80
Mauranen A (1993) Cultural differences in academic rhetoric. A textlinguistic © The Author(s) 2023
study. Peter Lang, Frankfurt/Main

8 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:41 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01525-0