Interlevel Interaction in Building Discourse Coherence: A Systemic Analysis of Discourse Marker Functioning in English Academic Discourse in the Social Sciences

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The purpose of the research is to analyze the systemic role of discourse markers, functioning through the interlevel interaction of their properties, in building coherence in English academic discourse within the social sciences. The material consists of a corpus of English research articles in sociology, political science, and psychology (50 articles, 2019–2024, ~415,000 words). The methods involve a mixed-methods approach: corpus analysis to identify discourse markers frequency and distribution, and qualitative discourse analysis to interpret their functions in context. The results show the prevalence of contrastive (e.g., however) and causal (therefore) discourse markers in structuring argumentation.

About the authors

Natalia Vyacheslavovna Malkova

Prince Alexander Nevsky Military University of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation

Author for correspondence.
Email: malkova_n_v@mail.ru

PhD in Pedagogy, Associate Professor, Associate Professor at the Department of Foreign Languages

Russian Federation

References

  1. Halliday, M. A. K., Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
  2. Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. CSLI Publications.
  3. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841.
  4. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931–952. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5.
  5. Hyland, K. (2022). Teaching and researching writing. 4th ed. Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781003194200.
  6. Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. P. M., Noordman, L. G. M. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15(1), 1–35. doi: 10.1080/01638539209544800.
  7. Mann, W. C., Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243.
  8. Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.9.
  9. Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486456.
  10. Crible, L. (2018). Discourse markers and discourse coherence: A corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics, 128, 81–94. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.02.009.
  11. Fischer, K. (Ed.). (2006). Approaches to discourse particles. Elsevier.
  12. Jucker, A. H., & Ziv, Y. (Eds.). (1998). Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.57.
  13. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
  14. Halliday, M. A. K., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar. 4th ed. Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203783771.
  15. Croft W. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. – Oxford University Press, 2001. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001.
  16. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
  17. Walker, R., & Minton, E. A. (2022). Responding to societal problems via brand activism: Does congruency matter? Journal of Business Research, 149, 819–829. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.05.073.
  18. Guo, Y., Wang, S., Li, X. (2023). How collective psychological ownership fosters knowledge sharing: The mediating role of organizational commitment and moderating role of workplace ostracism. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(1), 1–19. doi: 10.1108/JKM-04-2021-0320.
  19. Smith, J., Johnson, L., Williams, D. (2021). The impact of remote work on employee well-being: A qualitative study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(5), 690–705. doi: 10.1037/apl0000899.
  20. Davis, P., Brown, K. (2022). Social media use and political polarization: An experimental approach. Political Communication, 39(3), 315–332. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2021.1987133.
  21. Miller, S. (2020). Rethinking community policing effectiveness in diverse neighborhoods. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(4), 1125–1148. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12516.
  22. Adams, C., Roberts, E. (2023). Climate change adaptation strategies in coastal cities: A comparative analysis. Global Environmental Change, 78, 102615. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102615.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).