Discourse Markers and Plagiarism in the Literature Review Section of a Research Thesis: A Study in Kenya

Emily Ayieta Ondondo; Francis Owino Rew

doi:doi:10.11648/j.cls.20200602.13

| Peer-Reviewed

Discourse Markers and Plagiarism in the Literature Review Section of a Research Thesis: A Study in Kenya

Emily Ayieta Ondondo, Francis Owino Rew

Published in Communication and Linguistics Studies (Volume 6, Issue 2)

Received: 14 May 2020 Accepted: 28 May 2020 Published: 4 June 2020

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Academic writing is pertinent to postgraduate students because it is mandatory for them to write a research thesis as part of their degree programme. However, sometimes the theses that postgraduate students write do not communicate well or depict their professionalism. One of the problems these students face, as they write, is appropriate use of discourse markers. Discourse markers, when used appropriately, enhance coherence and signal the presence of particular relationships among text elements. They are also crucial tools for achieving communicative act in the text because they guide and influence the text receivers’ interpretation of the text. To evaluate how postgraduate students in Kenya use discourse markers in their writing, as speakers of English as a second language, this paper analyzed the discourse markers in the literature review section of all the PhD theses deposited at JOOUST library. If postgraduate students use Discourse markers effectively, especially in the literature review section of their theses, this could help guard against plagiarism because their voices as writers will be forcefully brought out. Basing on Fraser’s taxonomy the study identified different hierarchies of discourse markers though elaborative and inferential markers were the most frequent types. The study also suggested how some of the discourse markers identified could be used to bring out the writer’s voice so as to guard against plagiarism.

Published in	Communication and Linguistics Studies (Volume 6, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.cls.20200602.13
Page(s)	27-33
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Discourse Analysis, Discourse Markers, Form, Function, Thesis Writing, Plagiarism

References

[1]	Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
[2]	Hu, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Unknown Vocabulary Density and Reading Comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13 (1), 403-430.
[3]	Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[4]	Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[5]	Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
[6]	Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The Grammar Book: An ESL/ EFL Teacher’s Course (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
[7]	Cowan, R. (2008). The teacher’s grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[8]	Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
[9]	Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[10]	Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
[11]	Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 263-286.
[12]	Hernandez, T. (2008). Effect of Explicit Instruction and Input Flood on Students' Use of Spanish Discourse Markers on a Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview. Hispania, 91 (3), 665-675.
[13]	Fraser, B. (1998). Contrastive discourse markers in English. In A. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse Markers: Description and Theory (pp. 301–326). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
[14]	Gerard, S. (2000). Discourse Markers. Centre for Applied Linguistics. Learning English online at Warwick.
[15]	Wei, M. (2011). A Comparative Study of the Oral Proficiency of Chinese Learners of English across Task Functions: A Discourse Marker Perspective. Foreign Language Annals, 44 (4), 674-691.
[16]	Barnabas J., & Adamu, M. (2012). Discourse Markers in Nigerian Television News Broadcast. British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 8 (1), 44-56.
[17]	Redeker, G. (1991). Review Article: Linguistic Markers of Discourse Structure. Linguistics, 29 (6), 1139-1172.
[18]	Dulger, O. (2007). Discourse markers in writing. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 18, 257-270.
[19]	Lenk, U. (1998). Marking Discourse Coherence: Functions of Discourse Markers in Spoken English. Tubingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.
[20]	Schiffrin, D. (2001). Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning and Context. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 54–75). Oxford: Blackwell.
[21]	Norrish, J. (1983). Language Learners and their Errors. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.
[22]	Warsi, J. (2000). The Acquisition of English Contrastive Discourse Markers by Advanced Russian ESL Students. Ph. D. Thesis. Boston University.
[23]	Coxhead, A., & Byrd, P. (2007). Preparing writing teachers to teach the vocabulary and grammar of academic prose. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 129–147.
[24]	Hyland, K. (2008). As Can Be Seen: Lexical Bundles and Disciplinary Variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4–21.
[25]	Li, J., & Schmitt, N. (2009). The Acquisition of Lexical Phrases in Academic Writing: A Longitudinal Case Study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 85-102.
[26]	Haswell, R. (1991). Gaining Ground in College Writing: Tales of Development and Interpretation. Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press.
[27]	Matras, Y. (1997). The Function and Typology of Coordinating Conjunctions: Evidence from Discourse and Language-Contact Situations. In John H. Connolly, Roel M. Vismans, Christopher S. Butler, and Richard A. Gatward (Eds.). Discourse and Pragmatics in Functional Grammar 177-191. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[28]	de Beaugrande, R. (1994). Discourse Analysis. In M. Groden & M. Kreiswirth (Eds.). The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism, 207- 210. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
[29]	Brown, G & Yule, G. (1986). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
[30]	Cumming, S & Tsuyoshi, O. (1997). Discourse and Grammar. In Teun A. van Dijk (Eds.). Discourse as Structure and Process, 112-137. London: Sage.
[31]	Grimes, J. E. (1975). The Thread of Discourse. New York/Amsterdam: Mouton Publishers.
[32]	Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Hodder Arnold.
[33]	Hatim, B. (1997). Communication across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
[34]	Hoey, M. (2001). Textual Interaction: An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis. London/New York: Routledge.
[35]	Hoey, M. (2002). Textual Colligation: A Special Kind of Lexical Priming. In Karin Aijmer, and Bengt Altenberg (Eds.). Advances in Corpus Linguistics: Papers from the 23rd International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 23). Amsterdam/New York: Göteborg.
[36]	Longacre, R. E. (1996). The Grammar of Discourse, 2nd edition. New York/London: Plenum Press.
[37]	Morgan, J. L & Sellner, M. B. (1980). Discourse and linguistic theory. In Rand, J. Spiro, Bertram C. Bruce & William F. Brewer (Eds). Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension: Perspective from Cognitive Psychology, Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence, and Education, 163-200. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
[38]	Reinhart, T. (1980). Conditions for Text Coherence. Poetics Today 1 (4), 161-80.
[39]	Callow, K. (1998). Man and Message: A Guide to Meaning-Based Text Analysis. New York/Oxford: Summer Institute of Linguistics, Inc. and University Press of America.
[40]	Graustein, G & Thiele, W. (1987). Properties of English Texts. Leipzig: Veb Verlag Enzyklopädie.
[41]	Hinds, J. (1977). Paragraph Structure and Pronominalization. Papers in Linguistics, 10, 77-99.
[42]	Van Dijk, T. A. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. London/New York: Academic Press.
[43]	Cawsey, A. (1990). Generating Explanatory Discourse. In Robert Dale, Chris Mellish & Michael Zoch (Eds.). Current Research in Natural Language Generation, 75-101. London/New York: Academic Press.
[44]	Hovy, E. H. (1990). Unresolved Issues in Paragraph Planning. In Robert Dale, Chris Mellish, and Michael Zock (Eds.). Current Research in Natural Language Generation, 17-45. San Diego: Academic Press Inc.
[45]	De Beaugrande, R & Dressler, W. U. (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London/New York: Longman.
[46]	Fraser, B. (1990). An Approach to Discourse Markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 383- 395.
[47]	Grosz, B. J. & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse. Computational Linguistic, 12 (3), 175-204.
[48]	Kroon, C. (1997). Discourse Markers, Discourse Structure and Functional Grammar. In John H. Connolly, Roel M. Vismans, Christopher S. Butler, and Richard A. Gatward (Eds.). Discourse and Pragmatics in Functional Grammar, 17-32. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[49]	Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931-952.
[50]	Crowhurst, M. (1987). Cohesion in argument and narration at three grade levels. Research in the leaching of English, 21, 185-201.
[51]	Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 145–160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[52]	Howarth, P. (1998). The Phraseology of Learners’ Academic Writing. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 161–186). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[53]	Schleppegrell, M. J. (1996). Conjunctions in Spoken English and ESL Writing. Applied Linguistics, 17, 271-285.
[54]	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.
[55]	Adewibowo, D., Imranuddin, & Azwandi. (2018). A Study of Discourse Markers used in the Thesis Background Written by the Students of English Department of Bengkulu University. Journal of English Education and Teaching (JEET), 2 (3), 89-97.
[56]	Sandholtet, M. (2018). Discourse Markers in Written Learner English: A Corpus-based Study of the Discourse Markers “so, like, actually, anyway, well, you know, and I mean” in Written Norwegian Learner Language. MA Thesis University of Oslo.
[57]	Hasniar. (2017). Discourse Markers used in Brad Bird’s Movie “Tomorrowland”. MA Thesis Alauddin State Islamic University Maskassar.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Emily Ayieta Ondondo, Francis Owino Rew. (2020). Discourse Markers and Plagiarism in the Literature Review Section of a Research Thesis: A Study in Kenya. Communication and Linguistics Studies, 6(2), 27-33. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20200602.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Emily Ayieta Ondondo; Francis Owino Rew. Discourse Markers and Plagiarism in the Literature Review Section of a Research Thesis: A Study in Kenya. Commun. Linguist. Stud. 2020, 6(2), 27-33. doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20200602.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Emily Ayieta Ondondo, Francis Owino Rew. Discourse Markers and Plagiarism in the Literature Review Section of a Research Thesis: A Study in Kenya. Commun Linguist Stud. 2020;6(2):27-33. doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20200602.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.cls.20200602.13,
  author = {Emily Ayieta Ondondo and Francis Owino Rew},
  title = {Discourse Markers and Plagiarism in the Literature Review Section of a Research Thesis: A Study in Kenya},
  journal = {Communication and Linguistics Studies},
  volume = {6},
  number = {2},
  pages = {27-33},
  doi = {10.11648/j.cls.20200602.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20200602.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.cls.20200602.13},
  abstract = {Academic writing is pertinent to postgraduate students because it is mandatory for them to write a research thesis as part of their degree programme. However, sometimes the theses that postgraduate students write do not communicate well or depict their professionalism. One of the problems these students face, as they write, is appropriate use of discourse markers. Discourse markers, when used appropriately, enhance coherence and signal the presence of particular relationships among text elements. They are also crucial tools for achieving communicative act in the text because they guide and influence the text receivers’ interpretation of the text. To evaluate how postgraduate students in Kenya use discourse markers in their writing, as speakers of English as a second language, this paper analyzed the discourse markers in the literature review section of all the PhD theses deposited at JOOUST library. If postgraduate students use Discourse markers effectively, especially in the literature review section of their theses, this could help guard against plagiarism because their voices as writers will be forcefully brought out. Basing on Fraser’s taxonomy the study identified different hierarchies of discourse markers though elaborative and inferential markers were the most frequent types. The study also suggested how some of the discourse markers identified could be used to bring out the writer’s voice so as to guard against plagiarism.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Discourse Markers and Plagiarism in the Literature Review Section of a Research Thesis: A Study in Kenya
AU  - Emily Ayieta Ondondo
AU  - Francis Owino Rew
Y1  - 2020/06/04
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20200602.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.cls.20200602.13
T2  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
JF  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
JO  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
SP  - 27
EP  - 33
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2380-2529
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20200602.13
AB  - Academic writing is pertinent to postgraduate students because it is mandatory for them to write a research thesis as part of their degree programme. However, sometimes the theses that postgraduate students write do not communicate well or depict their professionalism. One of the problems these students face, as they write, is appropriate use of discourse markers. Discourse markers, when used appropriately, enhance coherence and signal the presence of particular relationships among text elements. They are also crucial tools for achieving communicative act in the text because they guide and influence the text receivers’ interpretation of the text. To evaluate how postgraduate students in Kenya use discourse markers in their writing, as speakers of English as a second language, this paper analyzed the discourse markers in the literature review section of all the PhD theses deposited at JOOUST library. If postgraduate students use Discourse markers effectively, especially in the literature review section of their theses, this could help guard against plagiarism because their voices as writers will be forcefully brought out. Basing on Fraser’s taxonomy the study identified different hierarchies of discourse markers though elaborative and inferential markers were the most frequent types. The study also suggested how some of the discourse markers identified could be used to bring out the writer’s voice so as to guard against plagiarism.
VL  - 6
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Emily Ayieta Ondondo

Department of Linguistics, Languages and Literature, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology (JOOUST), Bondo, Kenya
Francis Owino Rew

Department of Linguistics, Languages and Literature, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology (JOOUST), Bondo, Kenya

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Emily Ayieta Ondondo, Francis Owino Rew. (2020). Discourse Markers and Plagiarism in the Literature Review Section of a Research Thesis: A Study in Kenya. Communication and Linguistics Studies, 6(2), 27-33. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20200602.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Emily Ayieta Ondondo; Francis Owino Rew. Discourse Markers and Plagiarism in the Literature Review Section of a Research Thesis: A Study in Kenya. Commun. Linguist. Stud. 2020, 6(2), 27-33. doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20200602.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Emily Ayieta Ondondo, Francis Owino Rew. Discourse Markers and Plagiarism in the Literature Review Section of a Research Thesis: A Study in Kenya. Commun Linguist Stud. 2020;6(2):27-33. doi: 10.11648/j.cls.20200602.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.cls.20200602.13,
  author = {Emily Ayieta Ondondo and Francis Owino Rew},
  title = {Discourse Markers and Plagiarism in the Literature Review Section of a Research Thesis: A Study in Kenya},
  journal = {Communication and Linguistics Studies},
  volume = {6},
  number = {2},
  pages = {27-33},
  doi = {10.11648/j.cls.20200602.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20200602.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.cls.20200602.13},
  abstract = {Academic writing is pertinent to postgraduate students because it is mandatory for them to write a research thesis as part of their degree programme. However, sometimes the theses that postgraduate students write do not communicate well or depict their professionalism. One of the problems these students face, as they write, is appropriate use of discourse markers. Discourse markers, when used appropriately, enhance coherence and signal the presence of particular relationships among text elements. They are also crucial tools for achieving communicative act in the text because they guide and influence the text receivers’ interpretation of the text. To evaluate how postgraduate students in Kenya use discourse markers in their writing, as speakers of English as a second language, this paper analyzed the discourse markers in the literature review section of all the PhD theses deposited at JOOUST library. If postgraduate students use Discourse markers effectively, especially in the literature review section of their theses, this could help guard against plagiarism because their voices as writers will be forcefully brought out. Basing on Fraser’s taxonomy the study identified different hierarchies of discourse markers though elaborative and inferential markers were the most frequent types. The study also suggested how some of the discourse markers identified could be used to bring out the writer’s voice so as to guard against plagiarism.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Discourse Markers and Plagiarism in the Literature Review Section of a Research Thesis: A Study in Kenya
AU  - Emily Ayieta Ondondo
AU  - Francis Owino Rew
Y1  - 2020/06/04
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20200602.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.cls.20200602.13
T2  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
JF  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
JO  - Communication and Linguistics Studies
SP  - 27
EP  - 33
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2380-2529
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20200602.13
AB  - Academic writing is pertinent to postgraduate students because it is mandatory for them to write a research thesis as part of their degree programme. However, sometimes the theses that postgraduate students write do not communicate well or depict their professionalism. One of the problems these students face, as they write, is appropriate use of discourse markers. Discourse markers, when used appropriately, enhance coherence and signal the presence of particular relationships among text elements. They are also crucial tools for achieving communicative act in the text because they guide and influence the text receivers’ interpretation of the text. To evaluate how postgraduate students in Kenya use discourse markers in their writing, as speakers of English as a second language, this paper analyzed the discourse markers in the literature review section of all the PhD theses deposited at JOOUST library. If postgraduate students use Discourse markers effectively, especially in the literature review section of their theses, this could help guard against plagiarism because their voices as writers will be forcefully brought out. Basing on Fraser’s taxonomy the study identified different hierarchies of discourse markers though elaborative and inferential markers were the most frequent types. The study also suggested how some of the discourse markers identified could be used to bring out the writer’s voice so as to guard against plagiarism.
VL  - 6
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download