The use of discourse markers in argumentative compositions by Jordanian EFL learners

The study examines discourse markers (DMs) such as but, and, therefore, because, which signal relations between discourse segments and support cohesion and coherence. Prior work highlights their importance for comprehensibility in academic writing and notes challenges for EFL learners, including overuse, underuse and misuse; sensitivity to genre; and cross-linguistic variation. Argumentative writing is considered particularly challenging in L1 and L2. The present research investigates DMs in argumentative texts by Jordanian EFL sophomores and seniors at the Hashemite University to address: (1) Which types of DMs are more or less frequent in their compositions? (2) Are there significant differences between sophomores and seniors in DM use? (3) Is there a correlation between DM frequency and writing quality? The study aims to inform pedagogy and clarify whether DM use correlates with writing quality in this context.

Studies on EFL learners show varied DM usage patterns. Altenberg and Tapper (1998) found advanced Swedish learners underused DMs compared to natives, with summative markers rare; Tapper (2005) reported Swedish learners overused DMs relative to American students, likely due to L1 transfer. Müller (2005) showed German learners used some DMs but lacked certain functions. Fung and Carter (2007) found Hong Kong learners relied on referential DMs but underused items like really and sort of. Research on the relation between DM frequency and writing quality is mixed: some found no positive correlation (e.g., Alattar & Abu-Ayyash, 2020; Zhang, 2021), while others reported weak-to-positive correlations (e.g., Martínez, 2016; Uzun, 2017). Genre matters: elaborative and contrastive DMs often dominate in argumentative writing (Rahimi, 2011; Doró, 2016; Ghanbari et al., 2016; Alghamdi, 2014). In Jordan, prior work focused on expository writing and found proficiency affects DM use and that logical connectors are often used inaccurately (Ali & Mahadin, 2015; Asassfeh et al., 2013). This study fills a gap by analyzing DMs in Jordanian EFL argumentative compositions.

The study adopts Fraser’s (1999) characterization of DMs and includes six categories: contrastive (although, however, yet, etc.), elaborative (and, also, in addition, etc.), inferential (therefore, as a result, etc.), reason (because, since, etc.), conclusive (in conclusion, in short, etc.; Martínez, 2004), and exemplifier (for example, for instance, etc.; Martínez, 2004). Participants were 120 Jordanian EFL learners (Arabic L1), ages 18–22, at the Hashemite University during spring 2019–20, randomly selected from eight classes and divided into two groups: 60 sophomores (completed basic grammar and paragraph writing) and 60 seniors (completed advanced grammar and essay writing). To ensure heterogeneity and realism, participants varied by gender and GPA (good to excellent). Task: an argumentative essay (minimum 250 words) on online learning (“Online education is rapidly increasing in popularity... Discuss both views and give your opinion.”). Students had 40 minutes after a brief introduction on online education in Jordan. Data processing: DMs were identified using Fraser’s lists (1999, 2006) and categorized; WordSmith Tools 4.0 generated concordances and frequencies. Two experienced English instructors rated compositions out of 20; essays scoring >12 were considered good quality. Interrater agreement was 95%. Statistical analyses included: (a) descriptive frequencies of DM categories and individual DMs; (b) independent-samples t-test to compare groups; (c) lexical density measure for DMs (proportion of DMs to total words; sophomores 8549 words, seniors 8991 words); and (d) Pearson’s r to assess correlation between DM frequency and writing quality.

• Overall frequency: 802 DM tokens across all essays; sophomores 415 (51.7%), seniors 387 (48.3%).
• Category distribution (Sophomores vs Seniors; percentages): Elaborative 49.9% vs 40.0%; Contrastive 18.3% vs 26.9%; Reason 16.4% vs 13.2%; Exemplifier 6.5% vs 8.8%; Conclusive 5.1% vs 8.0%; Inferential 3.8% vs 3.1%. Rank order was the same across groups; inferential DMs were least frequent.
• Individual DMs: The most common across both groups were and (36.1% sophomores; 23.2% seniors), because (14.2%; 10.6%), and but (9.6%; 9%). Seniors relied less on and and showed relatively greater use of a variety of contrastive and conclusive/exemplifier markers. Many DMs were underused or absent (e.g., hence, nonetheless, nevertheless, despite, on the contrary, consequently, since, in other words).
• Examples of specific counts include: and ≈150 (sophomores) and 90 (seniors); because 59 and 41. Conclusive in conclusion was most frequent in its category (3.4% sophomores; 5.7% seniors). Inferential markers (thus, therefore, because of, as a result, accordingly) were generally rare and varied by group.
• Lexical density of DMs: 4.8% (sophomores) vs 4.3% (seniors), suggesting limited DM density overall.
• Group comparison: Independent-samples t-test showed no statistically significant difference in overall DM use between sophomores (M=69.17, SD=72.07) and seniors (M=64.50, SD=54.29); t(10)=0.126, p=0.901.
• Correlation with writing quality: Weak but significant positive correlations between DM frequency and scores: sophomores r(58)=0.32, p=0.012; seniors r(58)=0.42, p<0.001.

Findings show both proficiency groups favored elaborative, contrastive, and reason DMs, reflecting the demands of argumentative discourse (adding arguments, contrasting positions, justifying claims). Inferential, conclusive, and exemplifier markers were underused, indicating limited range and control over higher-level argumentative structuring. The dominance of and, because, and but suggests reliance on a restricted set of high-salience connectives, likely influenced by L1 Arabic transfer (e.g., frequent wa ‘and’) and pedagogical familiarity. Seniors demonstrated some development (e.g., relatively higher use of contrastive, conclusive, and exemplifier DMs; reduced dependence on and), but overall variety remained limited. The absence or rarity of items typical in formal argumentation (e.g., nevertheless, nonetheless, whereas, consequently) further signals underdevelopment in academic DM repertoire. The non-significant group difference in total DM frequency indicates that sheer quantity does not sharply distinguish these levels; rather, type and appropriateness matter. The weak positive correlations suggest that higher-rated essays tend to include more DMs, but the small effect underscores that frequency alone is not a strong determinant of quality; effective selection and deployment are likely more crucial. Pedagogically, explicit instruction to broaden DM range and to employ inferential and conclusive devices for structuring arguments could improve coherence and persuasiveness while mitigating L1 transfer effects.

The study shows that Jordanian EFL sophomores and seniors use similar DM categories in argumentative writing, with elaborative, contrastive, and reason types most frequent, and inferential, conclusive, and exemplifier types relatively infrequent. Across groups, and, because, and but were predominant, indicating reliance on a limited set and reflecting low proficiency in DM variety and appropriateness. Overall DM quantity did not differ significantly between groups, and DM frequency exhibited weak but significant positive correlations with writing quality, implying frequency may be a limited predictor. The results highlight the need for instruction that expands learners’ DM repertoires and promotes appropriate, varied use aligned with argumentative functions. Future research could explore DM use across proficiency levels and genres, and examine instructional interventions targeting underused categories such as inferential and conclusive markers.

• The analysis focused on overuse and underuse patterns; misuse in terms of incorrect usage (grammar, spelling, punctuation) was explicitly beyond the scope of the study.
• Correlational findings do not imply causation; the observed positive correlations between DM frequency and writing quality should not be interpreted as causal effects.