The Variety Of DMS On EFL Students’ English Writing


  • Muthmainnah Mursidin Universitas Islam Makassar
  • Ida Ilmiah Mursidin Institut Agama Islam Negeri Pare-pare


Kata Kunci:

Discourse Markers (DMs), Students’ English Writing.


This research was to find out the variety of discourse markers (DMs) used by the EFL students in English writing. This research employed a descriptive qualitative method. The respondents of this research were the second grade of EFL students; the total students were 30 students. The research data were collected by using an instrument namely writing activity. The writing consisted by argumentative text.  The data were analyzed qualitatively. The first important finding from this research was about the variety of DMs used by the students, there are 30 variety of DMs used by the students English writing. Despite the fact that DMs can create a smooth talk or make the conversation more natural, the students should be able to use DMs wisely in term of fluency and coherence measured in the students’ writing. Discourse markers tell us not only about the linguistic properties of a set of frequently used expressions, and the organization of social interactions and situations in which they are used, but also about the cognitive, expressive, social, and textual competence of those who use them.

Biografi Penulis

Muthmainnah Mursidin, Universitas Islam Makassar

Dosen FKIP Prodi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Islam Makassar

Ida Ilmiah Mursidin, Institut Agama Islam Negeri Pare-pare

Dosen FEBI Institut Agama Islam Negeri Pare-pare


Aidinlou, N. A, and Mehr. H. S. 2012. The Effect of Discourse Markers Instruction on EFL Learners’ Writing. Iran: Department of English Language and Linguistics, Islamic Azad University.

Aijmer, K. 2002. English discourse particles. Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Brown, G. & G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Degand, L. 2010. On Describing Polysemous Discourse Markers. What does translation add to the picture? University Catholique de Louvain. [Online] Available:

Fraser, Bruce. 2002. An Approach to Discourse Markers. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 14, Issue 3. [Online] Available: Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1016/0378-2166 (90)90096-V.

. 1990. “An approach to discourse markersâ€. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 383-395.

. 1998. Contrastive Discourse Markers in English. In: Jucker & Ziv(eds): Discourse Markers [C]. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company, 1998:301-326.

Jucker, A. H. and Ziv, Y. 1998. Discourse markers: Introduction. Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.

Gay, LR. 2006. Educational Research; Competencies for Analysis and Application. USA: Charles E. Merril Publishing.

Gerard, S. 2000. Discourse Markers. Centre for Applied Linguistics. Learning English online at Warwick.

Halliday, M. A. K. 2000. Introduction to Functional Grammar. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Beijing.

Halliday, M.A. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Hatch, E. 1992. Discourse & Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Müller, S. 2004. Well you know that type of person: Functions of well in the speech of American and German students. Journal of pragmatics, 33, 193-208.

Rum, Muh. 2014. Analyzing the Discourse Markers Used by the Students in IELTS speaking practice. Makassar: Universitas Negeri Makassar.

Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schiffrin, D., et al. 2002. The handbook of discourse analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.

Sharndama, E. C and Yakubu, S. 2013. An Analysis of Discourse Markers in Academic Report Writing. Federal University Wukari. Faculty of Humanities,Management and Social Sciences. Department of English and Literary Studies. Taraba State of Nigeria. International Journal of Academic Research and Reflection Vol. 1 No. 3, 2013.

Sperber, Dan, And Wilson, Deirde. 1995. Relevance: Communication And Cognition, Oxford: Blackwell (2nd Edition).