Journal of new advances in English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics

Journal of new advances in English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics

The Study of Discourse Markers in the Corpus of Iranian vs. American Newspaper

Document Type : Original Article

Author
English Department, Bushehr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bushehr, Iran
10.22034/jeltal.2023.4.2.12
Abstract
Discourse markers, as words or phrases, play a significant role in promoting coherent segments of discourse. They facilitate text interpretation and were key attributes in linking sentences, rendering the text coherent. This corpus-based research work was conducted to identify and compare the categories and functions of discourse markers (DMs) in the corpora of the American vs. Iranian newspaper. To do so, a corpus of 30 editorial articles was extracted from New York Times and 30 editorials from Iran Daily. The framework proposed by Fraser (1999) was employed to classify the detected categories of discourse markers (DMs) in three functions including contrastive, elaborative, and inferential. The obtained results from the descriptive statistics and Chi-Square test revealed that the American newspaper with total number of 168 DMs was found to be superior to Iranian newspaper with total frequency of 98 in terms of occurrence of DMs. More specifically, the findings indicated that the frequency of contrastive DM in the American newspaper was higher than the occurrence of this DM in the Iranian newspaper. Further, the frequency of both elaborative and inferential DMs in the New York Times editorials were considerably higher compared to the editorials extracted from Iran Daily newspaper.
Keywords

Algouzi, S. (2015). Discourse markers in Saudi English and British English: a comparative investigation of the use of English discourse markers (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation).University of Salford
Al-Khawaldeh, A. (2018). Uses of the discourse marker Wallahi in Jordanian spoken Arabic: A pragma-discourse perspective. International Journal of Humanities & Social Science, 8 (6), 114-123.
Babapour, M., Kuhi, D. (2018). A contrastive study of stance-markers in opinion columns of English vs. Farsi newspapers. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 11(22), 23-53. doi: 10.30495/jal. 541064
Fairclough, N. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in transdisciplanary research. In R. Wodak and P. Chilton (Eds.). A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis. (pp. 53-70). London: Routledge
Farnia, M., & Tavanpour, N. (2016). Interactional metadiscourse markers in sports news in newspapers: a cross-cultural study of American and Iranian columnists. The Philologist,1. 1-13.
Farnia, M., & Mohammadi, N. (2018). Cross-cultural analysis of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in persuasive local newspaper articles. Discourse & Interaction, 11(2), 27-44, https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2018-2-27
Flowerdew, J., & Dudley-Evans, T. (2002). Genre analysis of editorial letters to international journal contributors. Applied Linguistics, 23 (4), 463-489.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952.
Hinkel, E. (2001). Matters of cohesion in L1 and L2 academic texts. Applied Language Learning, 12, 111–132.
Homayounzadeh, M., & Mehrpour, S. (2013). A contrastive analysis of the American and Persian newspaper editorials. Journal of Pan- Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 17 (2), 1-22.
Hussein, M. (2008). The discourse marker ‘but’ in English and standard Arabic: one procedure and different implementations. Retrieved from citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download; jsessionid=1289F9459EA2E6AEF2B820F6216E6876?doi=10.1.1.626.5938&rep=rep1&ty pe=pdf
Hutchinson, B. (2004). Acquiring the meaning of discourse markers. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-04). doi:10.3115/1218955.1219042
Kurdi, H. A., & Matras, Y. (2008). The use of discourse markers by Syrian Arabic learners of English (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation), University of Manchester
Ma, F., & Ping, L. (2012). Advantages and disadvantages of native‐and nonnative‐English‐speaking teachers: Student perceptions in Hong Kong. TESOL quarterly, 46 (2), 280-305.
McEnery, A. M., & Wilson, A. (1996). Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
Moghadam, F. (2017). Persuasion in journalism: a study of metadiscourse in texts by native speakers of English and Iranian EFL writers. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,7, 483-494
Mughrabi, F. (2017). Arab learners of English and the use of discourse markers in writing. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 8, 715-738.
Noorian, M., & Biria, R. (2010). Interpersonal metadiscourse in persuasive journalism: A study of texts by American and Iranian EFL columnists. Journal of Modern Language, 20, 64-79
Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis: an introduction (2nd ed.). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Riazi, A., & Assar, F. (2000). A text analysis of Persian newspaper editorials at macro and micro levels. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 15-16 (30-31), 175- 192.
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). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Tavanpour, N., Goudarzi, Z., & Farnia. M. (2016). Interactional metadiscourse markers in sports news in newspapers: a cross-cultural study of American and Iranian columnists. The Philologist, 2 (1)-43-64.
Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Van Dijk, T. (2002). Principles of critical discourse analysis.  In M. Toolan (Ed.). Critical Discourse Analysis (Vol. 2)(Pp. 104-141). London: Routledge
Zwicky, A. M. (1985). Clitics and particles. Language, 61(2), 283-305.
 
Volume 4, Issue 2
September 2022
Pages 1051-1068

  • Receive Date 26 July 2022
  • Revise Date 27 September 2022
  • Accept Date 29 September 2023