340 EEJ 13 (3) (2023) 340-350 English Education Journal http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej Investigating Undergraduate Students Discourse Markers Used in Final Project Article of English Department at Universitas Negeri Semarang Wening Nur Habibah Alif, Dwi Rukmini, Sri Wuli Fitriati Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia Article Info ________________ Article History: Accepted 30 March 2023 Approved 8 June 2023 Published 15 September 2023 ________________ Keywords: Discourse Markers, Academic writing, Final project article ____________________ Abstract ___________________________________________________________________ Students' writing quality in academic writing must still be investigated. Especially in terms of coherence and arrangement between sentences, sometimes inaccuracies cause sentences written to be less meaningful. This study aims to: 1) describe the use of discourse markers in the final undergraduate student article projects, especially in the discussion section, and 2) explain how far the quality of undergraduate students' writing is in applying discourse markers. Discourse Markers are conjunctions used as hooks between sentences so that the linkages between sentences are maintained, and the meaning of the sentences can be easily understood. This study applies the theory of Discourse Markers by Fraser (2009), which is complemented by an explanation of material on Academic Writing based on the book Writing Academic English by Oshima and Hogue (2006). The instrument is in the form of documentation. This study's qualitative data for analysis came from 11 undergraduate students' final project articles focused on the discussion part only. Furthermore, the data is categorized into three types of Discourse Markers: contrastive, elaborative, and inferential. After that, the analysis results are also provided in the form of the quality of student writing which has been categorized as appropriate and less appropriate. Correspondence Address: Kampus Pascasarjana Unnes, Jl. Kelud Utara III Semarang, 50237, Indonesia E-mail: weninghabibah@gmail.com p-ISSN 2087-0108 e-ISSN 2502-4566 Wening Nur Habibah Alif, et al./ English Education Journal 13 (3) (2023) 340-350 341 INTRODUCTION Writing is more complicated than the other skills in that it uncovers the degree to which individuals can utilize a language to make precise thoughts, contend conclusions, and synthesize an assortment of points of view. Yet it is complicated; writing a final project is an obligation for all undergraduate students. It is a requirement to get a bachelor's title. Writing a final project for the students of English major is something familiar since they already got the course. However, students writing quality in writing paragraphs of the final project still need to be investigated. According to Macora (2016), many Indonesian students at EFL need help with writing, especially in using discourse markers. Discourse markers (henceforth: DMs) are part of writing used in both oral and written forms. Theory of discourse markers by Schiffrin (1987) defined discourse markers as moderately dependent items of discourse that support units of talk. Discourse markers, or DM, are a kind of lexical expression in the form of conjunction, adverbs, and prepositional phrases (Fraser, 2009). Using some conjunctions, adverbs, or other features in producing writing is obligatory. There are various kinds of DMs, each of them having various functions. Discourse markers in academic writing are essential. English speakers commonly use Discourse markers in both oral and written. In some cases, oral discourse markers seem so simple and easy. It is realized that a message delivered orally is more acceptable than a written one. The oral message contains easily understood meaning, while a written message may cause many perceptions. It depends on the context. Here, the accuracy of using the written discourse markers is being debated. Furthermore, non-native undergraduate students communicate in English only a few times weekly. They only speak English in class among their lecturers and fellows. As communication in English is limited, this factor causes the need for more writing produced by non-native students, specifically in the undergraduate program. Many researchers investigated discourse markers. The study of discourse markers usually discusses using discourse markers at the undergraduate level. Ali & Mahadin (2016) and Dumlao & Wilang (2019) stated that EFL learners' proficiency levels affect the use of DMs. Students who have high English proficiency tend to use variations of discourse markers. Furthermore, an expert formulated different types of discourse markers. Tree (2014) categorized DM into four types, they are 1) attitudinal, 2) tailored, 3) temporally sensitive, and 4) cohesive. According to the opinions, various discourse markers can be applied at any level. The various kinds of markers have various functions in the application. There are many kinds of research investigating the function of discourse markers. The functions identified are based on Fraser's (2009) theory. Sharndama (2013), Andayani (2014), Purwadina and Huda (2014), Rahayu (2015), Faghih and Mousaee (2015), Ali and Mahadin (2016), Adewibowo, Imranuddin, & Azwandi (2018), Surjowati (2018), Rahayati, Herlina, & Surahmat (2021), and Raputri, Pratama, & Hartono (2022) reported that the use of elaborative markers being the most frequent discourse markers used. Conversely, Al Owayid (2018) and Sumardiyani and Susanto (2020) declared that contrastive discourse is the most frequently used by students in their writing. To sum up, the frequency of discourse markers used in writing varies based on the function of discourse markers and the kind of writing. Through this writing, I investigated the undergraduate students' article, focusing on the discussion part of their final project article; on how they use written discourse markers in their writing. The discussion section of the article is part which reflects the students' writing quality. In this part, students, as the writer, were trying to discuss what they have found from their research and compare the result to the previous studies. This part could naturally show the students writing quality, especially on the use of discourse markers. Wening Nur Habibah Alif, et al./ English Education Journal 13 (3) (2023) 340-350 342 The present study aims to reveal the use of DMs and the student's performance in applying them in their final project articles. It is only focused on the discussion section of each article. The DMs analyzed in this study are based on Fraser's (2009) theory; they are contrastive, elaborative, and inferential. Therefore, the study goals concise are 1) the use of contrastive, elaborative, and inferential DMs; and also 2) the student's quality of writing in applying contrastive, elaborative, and inferential DMs. METHOD This research belongs to the descriptive qualitative research. The description focused on using discourse markers and the students writing quality using discourse markers. The object of the data was the final project article of undergraduate students. The part that would be investigated was the discussion part in the fourth chapter. It was chosen because the paragraphs were the authentic writing product of undergraduate students since the sentences used come from students' analyses based on their research results. In this study, the researcher becomes a discourse analyst of the data. The instrument of this study comes from the document; it is the eleven final project articles of undergraduate students who majored in English. The articles are from the ELT Forum: Journal of English Language Teaching, Universitas Negeri Semarang. In order to obtain discourse markers from the discussion section of each student article, the analysis in this study is through sentence-by- sentence analysis. This choice was taken because the discourse markers in question are connectors or conjunctions that can maintain coherence between sentences in paragraphs and even texts. The steps of data collection are: 1) deciding the final project articles that are used; 2) analyzing the dms used and how their function; 3) elaborating the findings in description. Meanwhile, to analyze the data, the steps are: 1) classifying the data, which can be categorized as the discourse markers; 2) analyzing to what extent the discourse markers are used; 3) analyzing the appropriateness according to the paragraph context. Then, to report the data, the researcher provided tables containing the dms, the frequency of use, and the percentage. The table presenting the quality of students' writing is also provided. Therefore, this study involved a validator as the triangulation. After all of the data are done to be analyzed and presented, the role of the validator is needed. The chosen validator is a reviewer of the elt forum journal. Her role in this study was checking the results of the analysis and ensuring the level of validity of the data regarding the discourse markers that have been concluded. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The research questions mentioned in the previous chapter divide this chapter into two sections. The first section elaborates on the use of DMs, and the second one is on the quality of students writing. In explaining the use of DMs, I divided them into three sections: contrastive, elaborative, and inferential DMs used by the students in their articles. Meanwhile, the explanation of students writing quality in implying contrastive DMs, elaborative DMs, and inferential DMs to support their writing is provided in the second section. The Use of Discourse Markers in Undergraduate Students Article Contrastive Discourse Markers (CDM) This part elaborates on using contrastive discourse markers in the undergraduate students' final project article discussion section. The articles are submitted to ELT Forum Journal. Ideally, writing or even a paragraph in writing always implies DMs. As we know that DMs keep the sentences linked together in a text; they have their kinds and function. The contrastive DMs, the first kind explained in this study, indicate a contrast between two phrases in a sentence. It means that the message expressed by S2 introduced by them directly or indirectly contrasts with S1 (Fraser: 2009). Wening Nur Habibah Alif, et al./ English Education Journal 13 (3) (2023) 340-350 343 Depending on the analysis result, the use of contrastive DMs in eleven undergraduate students' articles varies. The eleven students used 9 25 kinds of contrastive DMs in their final project article, mainly in the discussion section. Those are: although, but, in contrast, instead, rather, still, though, whereas, and yet. The following table shows the use of contrastive DMs for the whole article. Table 1. The Contrastive DMs Used by Undergraduate Students Table 1. above displays that the higher frequency in using DMs is the Writer 10. They implied 4 kinds of contrastive DMs; they are but, although, still, and though. Whereas Writer 1 implied the more various DMs than Writer 10. I found 6 kinds of contrastive DMs in their writing; they are: but, although, rather, still, though, and whereas. Otherwise, Writer 3 also applied 6 kinds of DMs in a few numbers for each; they are but, although, in contrast, still, though, and whereas. Writers 1 and 3 have more insight into using the DMs in their writing. The variety of DMs used shows that they improved their writing using several DMs. Furthermore, 2 writers implied only 1 DM (Writers 2 and 11), and 2 writers did not use any contrastive DMs in their writing (Writers 4 and 5). In order to see a description of the types of contrastive DMs, I got the point that contrastive DMs are known and used by undergraduate students in their final project articles but in a small composition. Among the DMs that are commonly used by them are discourse markers. But it is the primary contrastive DM that is easy to recognize and often used. Its function is to refer to contra meaning, but it is usually placed between two phrases with opposite messages. The contrastive DM that is rarely used among the 11 student writings is instead. I only found that instead was used once by Writer 7. Referring to the analysis results above, using instead as DM is rare because writers prefer to use rather. In addition, instead and rather have similar meanings, which show alternative meanings. Meanwhile, the CDMs that students never use are: alternatively, contrariwise, contrary to expectations, conversely, despite (this/that), even so, however, in spite of (this/that), in comparison (with this/that), nevertheless, nonetheless, (this/that) point, notwithstanding, on the other hand, on the contrary, and regardless. Elaborative Discourse Markers (EDM) Different to the contrastive one, the use of elaborative discourse markers (EDMs) in student articles shows more quantity. As information, the elaborative function of DM in a sentence shows that two phrases have parallel and non-contradictory meanings. Some examples of elaborative DMs include: and, also, in addition, in other words, or, and so on. Based on the author's results, 11 types of elaborative DM are applied in student articles out of a total of 28 types of elaborative DM. The table below shows the quantity and percentage of elaborative DMs applied in undergraduate students writing. Table 2. The Elaborative DMs Used by Undergraduate Students Wening Nur Habibah Alif, et al./ English Education Journal 13 (3) (2023) 340-350 344 The table above shows that elaborative DMs are frequently used in students' articles. 706 DMs consist of: and, besides, for example, further, in addition, in other words, or, otherwise, rather, and that is. Among those types of DMs, the most frequently used is discourse marker. It is used 468 times. Then, it is followed by the DM, which is used 85 times. The third position is also which is used by all of the writers 85 times. The rest of the DMs are used only a few; they are only used 22 times, 18 times, 9 times, etc. Meanwhile, the rarest DM is otherwise. It is only used once by the ninth writer. The whole writer applied the eleven elaborative DMs in their writing. They already understood the function of some elaborative DMs to improve their writing quality. Among the 11 authors, the eighth writer appeared to apply the elaborative DMs in a variety of ways. The writing he made was quite rich with DMs. It is proven that he has used 119 DMs to enrich his discussion section. He applied DM 73 times, 22 times, 7 times, etc. There is only one type of DM that he should have used, namely, otherwise. According to the analysis, from those 28 kinds of EDMs, we can infer that 17 kinds of EDMs still need to be used by the students in their writing. They are: above all, alternatively, analogously, by the same token, correspondingly, equally, for instance, in particular, likewise, more accurately, more importantly, more precisely, more to the point, moreover, on that basis, on top of it all, and similarly. Inferential Discourse Markers (IDM) This study's last type of DM is inferential discourse markers (IDMs). This kind of DM has the function of conveying messages in sentences. In addition, these DMs are also useful for referring to the meaning of concluding. Some examples of inferential DMs are: so, therefore, thus, as a result, etc. Below are the findings to answer research question number one regarding using DMs in student articles. As many as 9 of 18 inferential DMs have been applied to the discussion part of the articles belonging to undergraduate students. So, as a consequence of this/that, as a result of this/that, because of this/that, consequently, in this case, then, therefore, and thus are the inferential DMs used. The data has been provided in the table below. Research findings that are given in Table 4.3 prove that the use of inferential DMs is not as many as elaborative DMs. 61 IDMs were found in 11 discussion sections of undergraduate students' articles. 11 writers in various amounts implied those 61 IDMs. The rare IDMs the writers use are a consequence of this/that. Consequently, IDMs are only found once for each. Contrariwise, the most frequently IDMs used is so, which is applied 17 times. The next is the DM, then. It is found in students writing 15 times. For the rest IDMs, I found as a result of this/that and thus are used 7 times for each. Besides, the IDMs because of this/that and, in this case, are used 6 times for each. As noticed from the number of DMs applied, writer 6 is the writer who used IDM the most. They used IDMs 24 times, consisting of 5 kinds of DMs. Followed by writer 8, who applied DMs 10 times; the variation of DMs they used is 6 kinds of DMs. The next is writers 1 and 2, who applied DMs 7 times; writers 9 for 3 times; writers 4 and 11 only twice; and the rest writers only implied once. Table 3. The Inferential DMs Used by Undergraduate Students Wening Nur Habibah Alif, et al./ English Education Journal 13 (3) (2023) 340-350 345 From the table above, I found that there are only 9 IDMs out of 18 IDMs were applied by the students. There are 9 kinds of IDMs that students do not use to support their writing. Those unused IDMs are: after all, all things considered, as a conclusion, for this/that reason, hence, it follows that, accordingly, on this/that condition, and on these/those grounds. Thus, contrastive and inferential DMs seem minimal, not as much as elaborative DMs. It may occur due to undergraduate students being less familiar with various contrastive and inferential DMs, so inferential DMs are few and do not vary. On the other hand, many kinds of discourse markers are unused by undergraduate students. According to the calculation, from 71 total DMs, only 29 kinds are used by students. The DMs applied in the students' discussion section of the final project article are only 41%. The rest of the DMs, at about 59%, seemed unfamiliar to students, so they did not use them. There should be further study to know the reasons and to overcome the unfamiliar use of discourse markers. In conclusion, using discourse markers in academic writing, such as articles, should be optimized and improved to get more quality writing. The Quality of Discourse Markers in Undergraduate Students Article In this section, the author describes students' performance applying DMs in their writing. The elaboration through the data displayed one by one would show whether the DMs used by students in their sentences were appropriate or less appropriate. Table 4. Students Writing Quality in Applying Discourse Markers The table shows the percentage of students writing quality in applying Discourse Markers. The higher percentage of the appropriate DMs is the Elaborative Discourse Markers, which is 96%. Then, the appropriate use of inferential DMs is inferential DMs; it is 92%. And the last one is the appropriate use of Contrastive DMs; it is 79%. Then, the following elaboration will give the details of each kind of DM. Meanwhile, the higher percentage of the less appropriate use of DMs is started from Contrastive DMs (21%), Inferential DMs (8%), and Elaborative DMs (4%). From the analysis result, the higher appropriate quality of using DMs in undergraduate students' articles is the Elaborative Discourse Markers. On the other hand, Contrastive Discourse Markers are the lowest quality used in students' undergraduate articles. Students Writing Quality of Using CDMs I broke down the elaboration of students' writing performance into each kind of DM. According to the data analysis, most DMs are used properly and appropriately. For each kind of improper DM, I provide data samples to know to what extent students of fault. The following table presents students writing quality in summary. Table 5. Students Writing Quality In Applying Contrastive Discourse Marker Wening Nur Habibah Alif, et al./ English Education Journal 13 (3) (2023) 340-350 346 The table above shows the magnitude of the quality of student writing by applying contrastive discourse markers, which are indicated by numbers. A means Appropriate, while LA means Less Appropriate. Displays from the CDMs table, we know that for each type of DM, the appropriateness of using CDMs in sentences is higher than the level of less appropriateness. Although almost all CDMs have a less appropriate level, the value is low. Look at the use of although for example. The CDMs, although, are applied seven times in the sentences. However, out of the seven, four were considered appropriate, and the remaining three were considered less appropriate. However, these types of CDMs are considered appropriate because their level of appropriateness is higher. Furthermore, below is explained the quality of the use of CDMs, especially for the less appropriate ones. An example of the use of CDM will be given next. It is the use of but and although. Excerpt CDM-A1. Although the teacher also applied group discussion techniques in MM class, but the frequency of the teacher in giving information was much lower than in TP class. The use of although and but could be more efficient in that sentence. It is better to omit the DM rather than use both. The more efficient and feasible sentence is: Although the teacher also applied group discussion techniques in MM class, but the frequency of the teacher in giving information was much lower than in TP class. Although and but are contrastive DMs which refer to the meaning of something that happens in the second clause that does not match the reality in the first clause. There needs to be a conjunction in the form of but and punctuation in the form of a comma. The sentence is correct from the point of view of its usage. Students Writing Quality of Using EDMs The next would be the elaboration of using Elaborative Discourse Markers. According to the data analysis, most of the DMs are used properly and appropriate. The following table displays the students’ quality of writing their article. Table 6. Students Writing Quality In Applying Elaborative Discourse Marker As with the previous use of CDMs, the appropriateness level of EDMs is much higher than that of less appropriateness. We take an example of the use of EDM. The appropriate use of or is 79 times, while the less appropriate one is five times. Students probably made a mistake in using and, but not a fatal error. Moreover, EDMs are used with a very high frequency of use, which shows that students are very familiar with using EDMs. Thus, students' mistakes could be more minimal in applying EDMs in their sentences. Here, an explanation of the less appropriate use of EDMs is provided. The example given will be the use of EDM and. The DM is a conjunction used to connect two equal and not contradictory things. The use of the word and the results of the data analysis show that this conjunction is very popular and familiar. Even so, not all of its usage is correct in a sentence. I found a few sentences that use the word and must be corrected. Excerpt EDM-B4 Wening Nur Habibah Alif, et al./ English Education Journal 13 (3) (2023) 340-350 347 And the last role was learners who learn from the teacher, other students, and other sources. The sentence shows the use of DM and needs to be more proper because it is located at the beginning of the sentence. The conjunction is only used in the middle of a sentence to join two equal clauses and does not have contradictory meanings. The sentence should be: And the last role was learners who learn from the teacher, other students, and other sources. The word and in front of the sentence should be omitted. Whereas if you want to add the word and, then the previous clause must be included. Students Writing Quality of Using IDMs The last elaboration would be given is the use of Elaborative Discourse Markers. According to the data analysis, most of the DMs are used properly and appropriate. I provided the explanation of the less appropriate use of IDMs. Table 7. Students Writing Quality In Applying Inferential Discourse Marker Then, the elaboration of the less appropriate use of IDMs is provided. The example given will be the use of IDM so. The discourse marker so is used to connect English words with a cause and effect, which is why so is used to give a conclusion and belongs to inferential DM. Moreover, I found some improper use of the word so. Here it is the example: Excerpt IDM-A4 In TP class, the teacher said that the teacher wanted students to improve their speaking skill so that the teacher gave more explanation and model how to pronounce the expression well. There is no comma punctuation in that sentence, so some readers should re-read again and again to find the sentence meaning. Moreover, this sentence used not only so, but also that. The word so that should be begun with the use of a comma. Here it is the correction: In TP class, the teacher said that the teacher wanted students to improve their speaking skill, so that the teacher gave more explanation and model how to pronounce the expression well. After the correction, the sentence sounds better. The meaning and the context are also clear and understandable. According to the data elaboration, the sample above shows the performance of students' academic writing. In reality, student writings still need to be more appropriate and re- examined. The contrastive DM is correct, but other factors, such as commas, can affect the meaning if it is not quite right. It can interfere with the meaning of sentences that contain conjunctions from DM. The first point that the writer would like to discuss here is in terms of the use of discourse markers. The analysis result of using DMs with many varieties of CDMs, EDMs, and IDMs proposed by Fraser (2009) presents that undergraduate students only apply a small portion of them. The first is the use of CDMs. A total of 11 students only applied 9 of the 25 types of CDMs. That means almost 1:3 CDMs are used by students. There was an assumption; that the 2:3 CDMs were not used in the sentence above, probably because the students needed to learn what they were using. In the future, there will be further research on this matter. Furthermore, the use of EDMs by 11 students should be improved. The reason is, of the 28 EDMs, only 11 types were applied by students. The remaining 17 varieties of EDMs Wening Nur Habibah Alif, et al./ English Education Journal 13 (3) (2023) 340-350 348 are unfamiliar and not found in the discussion chapter in student articles. On the other hand, the EDMs used commonly seem monotone, and the frequency is relatively high. This condition signals that students' knowledge of various EDMs may still be small. Meanwhile, if we look at the analysis results on IDMs, 9 out of 18 types of IDMs have been used by undergraduate students. The comparison is only 1:2 between IDMs applied to the total IDMs. Furthermore, among the three types of discourse markers, the most widely used are Contrastive Discourse Markers (CDMs), and the runner-up are the Elaborative Discourse Markers (EDMs), the second position in the DMs frequencies used by students. Meanwhile, inferential discourse markers (IDMs) occupy the last rank of Discourse Markers commonly used by students. Based on the description of findings, using discourse markers in student articles is close to great. However, there is a need for evaluation regarding punctuation, especially comma punctuation. It is proven that some student sentences still need to use comma punctuation, thus confusing the reader to understand the sentence's meaning. Returning to the review of the theory of discourse markers by Fraser (2009), there are three types of DMs: contrastive, elaborative, and inferential. Of those DMs, the ones that students must master are elaborative DMs. It can be seen from the use of elaborative DMs that all student article writers use them appropriately. Meanwhile, the use of contrastive DMs in this study has been analyzed, and the results of contrastive discourse markers are understood by students even though 2 out of 11 students do not apply the DMs in their writing. This fact also applies to inferential DMs. The use of inferential DMs seems reasonable enough in student article writing. The point that must be considered more thoroughly is only using punctuation to understand the sentence's meaning and context. Some of the students' mistakes in applying DMs in their writing include placing the DMs (at the beginning or in the middle of a sentence) and whether or not DMs are needed for comma punctuation. It is crucial considering sentences that do not use punctuation marks correctly; the meaning they contain will be different (not as expected by the speaker). Meanwhile, if the sentence is correct in the structure and use of punctuation, it will be easy to understand its meaning. CONCLUSION As stated in the previous chapter, using DMs in academic writing can increase sentence coherence. Although DMs are meaningless and do not have a permanent position in sentence structure, DMs have an important function in determining the meaning of sentences. DMs also have different functions depending on the type, which needs further study. After evaluating students' performance in using DMs in student writing, the analysis results show that students' abilities in using DMs are mostly correct. Students can apply the three types of DMs from the analysis results in their writing. Hopefully, this study could benefit the students, lecturers, teachers, and readers interested in discourse and academic writing to enlarge their insight toward discourse markers. This study, of course, still needs to be improved to produce higher-quality academic writing. REFERENCES Adewibowo, D., Imranuddin, & Azwandi (2018). A study of discourse markers used in the theses background written by the students of English department of Bengkulu University (Academic year December 2016). Journal of English Education and Teaching (JEET), 2(3), 89-97. Ali, E. A. M., 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. Al-Owayid, R. H. (2018). The use of contrastive discourse markers in academic writing by English-major Saudi female undergraduates at Qassim University, Wening Nur Habibah Alif, et al./ English Education Journal 13 (3) (2023) 340-350 349 Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(1), 51-63. Andayani, W. (2014). The use of English discourse markers in the argumentative writing of EFL Indonesian and Thai University students: A comparative study. Journal of Education, 7(1), 33-39. Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Blackwell Publishers. Browning, D. (2017). #Twitterdiscoursemarkers: A corpora- based study of the pragmatic functions of hashtags. 26(8), 1-188. Bu, J. (2012). A study of the acquisition of discourse markers by Chinese learners of English. International Journal of English Studies, 13(1), 29-50. 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. Faghih, E & Mousaee, A. (2015). English writing skill in terms of discourse markers in Interpol electronic messages written by non-native and native police officers: a comparative and contrastive study. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(7), 10-23. Fraser, B. (2009). An account of discourse markers. Int. Rev. Pragmatic, 1(2). 318-340. Halliday, M.A.K and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman Group Ltd. Lee, I. (2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: A classroom inquiry. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 135-159. Macora, Y, D. (2016). The problems of discourse markers and coherence in the graduates’ theses of Sintuwu Maroso University. Sintuwumaroso JET, (2)1, 11- 18. Modhish, A. (2012). Use of discourse markers in the composition writings of Arab EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 5(5), 56-61. Rahayati, N., Herlina, R., Surahmat, A. (2021). Discourse markers in abstracts of international journals. Journal of English Education Program, 1-7. Rahayu, T., Aziz, M., Permata, I., Sutantohadi, A., Widodo, Y. (2021). Discourse markers in EFL student presentations. Paper presented on International Conference on Business and Social Humanities 2020, Madiun, Indonesia. Rahayu, T., Cahyono, B. Y. (2015). Discourse Markers in Expository Essays Written by Indonesian Students of EFL. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(2), 21-29. Rahimi, M. (2011). Discourse markers in argumentative and expository writing of Iranian EFL Learners. World Journal of English Language, 1(2), 67-78. Raputri, E., Pratama, H., Hartono, R. (2022). Evaluating the use of discourse markers in selected English education journal articles. English Education Journal, 12(1). Richard, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (3rd ed.). Longman. Saputri, R. E. G., Fitriati, S. W. (2019). Students’ discourse markers in in-class oral presentations (A case of English Language Education Students at a university). 3rd UNNES-TEFLIN National Seminar, 101-105. Suprihatiningsih & Christina. (2021). Discourse markers in Muniba Mazari’s “We All are Perfectly Imperfect” Speech (2017). Metaphor Journal, 3(2), 64-74. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press. Schouroup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 107(3-4), 227-265. Shakarami, A., Hajhashemi, K., Caltabiano, N. (2016). Digital discourse markers in an ESL Learning Setting: The case of socialisation forums. International Journal of Instruction, 9(2), 168-182. Sharndama, E. C. (2013). An analysis of discourse markers in academic report writing: pedagogical implications. International Journal of Academic Research and Reflection, 1(3), 15-24. Sujarwati, I. (2017). An investigation of interactivity function of discourse markers Wening Nur Habibah Alif, et al./ English Education Journal 13 (3) (2023) 340-350 350 used by non-native English speakers in a casual conversation. English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 10(1), 72-87. Sumardiyani, L. & Susanto, D. A. (2020). Scrutinizing English discourse markers in EFL students’ writing production. English Teaching Jurnal, 11(2), 63-71. Surjowati, R. (2018). The use of discourse markers in EFL students’ essay writing. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (presented on 4th Prasasti International Conference on Recent Linguistics Research), 166, 248-251. Susanto, D. A., Bharati, D. A. L., Sutopo, D. (2018). Schiffrin’s English discourse markers functions in the students’ hortatory exposition text . Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research 287, 201-206. Susanto, D. A., Mujiyanto, J., Bharati, D. A. L., Sutopo, D. (2019). The use and functions of discourse markers (EDMs) in EFL students writing at university in Indonesia. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research 343, 67- 70. Syahabuddin, K. & Zikra, A. (2020). An analysis of contrastive discourse markers in students’ essays. Proceeding of the 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference (BELTIC 2018), 72-77. Tahaineh, Y. (2014). A review of EFL Arab learners language pitfalls and pedagogical implications. International Journal of English Linguistics 4(1), 84-102. Tehrani, A. R. & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2012). The pedagogical impact of discourse markers in the lecture genre: EFL learners’ writings in focus. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 3(4), 423-429. Tiryaki, E. N. (2017). Identification of justification types and discourse markers in Turkish EFL learners’ writings in focus. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(2), 63-70. Trask, R. L. (1999). Key concepts in language and linguistics. Routledge. Trihartanti, R. P. (2017). An analysis on the different use of discourse markers in spontaneous and non-spontaneous uterances. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 82, 311-313. Fox Tree, J. E. F. (2014). Discourse markers in writing. SAGE, 26(8), 1-19. Wang, Yu-Fang et al. (2007). From informational to emotive use: meiyou (‘no’) as a discourse marker in Taiwan Mandarin conversation, Discourse Studies 9(5): 677-701. Windy, Sudarsono, Sada, C. (2016). Discourse markers used in short series movie ‘friends’ and its relation with English language teaching. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran, 5(6), 1-16. Yuhas, B. J. (2013). An analysis of discourse markers and discourse labels as cohesive devices in ESL student writing. Master thesis, Colorado State University, Colorado. Yulianto (2021). Discourse markers in news articles of the Jakarta Post. Journal of English for Academic, 8(1), 55-63.