Using English Discourse Markers: A Comparison of Persian and English Dentistry Authors Mohammad Saber Khaghaninejad Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University, Iran Rahele Mavaddat Shiraz University, Iran Abstract—With regard to the role of discourse markers as key elements in creating any coherent and natural piece of languages, the present study aimed at investigating the implementation of English discourse makers in academic papers written by Persian and English dentistry researchers. To this end, 20 papers by Persian authors and 20 by English-speaking authors were selected and analyzed line by line. The findings revealed that discourse markers were more frequent in papers produced by English-speaking researchers. However, the papers in both groups contained almost an equal range of discourse markers. In addition, distribution of discourse markers among different sections of papers and under different sub-classes of discourse markers was almost similar in the two groups. Despite similarities in the implementation of discourse markers between papers produced by Persian and English researchers, the papers written by Persian authors still lacked coherence; this could be attributed to the underuse and misuse of discourse markers in these papers and the fact that discourse markers are not the only elements that make a text coherent. Index Terms—discourse markers, coherence, dentistry academic papers I. INTRODUCTION Discourse markers can help us as language speakers get the attention of our interlocutors. Simultaneously, they can help us convey our intended meaning more effectively through restricting the contextual assumptions available to our hearer and guiding his/her interpretation process. It can be stated that the use of discourse markers can reduce the cognitive load imposed on the hearer in processing information, improve the emotional quality of communication, and help in maintaining mutuality (Blakemore, 1993). Richards and Schmidt (2002) define discourse markers as “expressions that typically connect two segment s of discourse but do not contribute to the meaning of either. These include adverbials (e.g. however, still), conjunctions (e.g. and, but), and prepositional phrases (e.g. in fact)” (p. 162). More precisely, Fraser (1999) describes discourse markers as: a class of lexical expressions drawn primarily from the syntactic classes of conjunctions, adverbs, and prepositional phrases. With certain exceptions, they signal a relationship between the interpretation of the segment they introduce, S2, and the prior segment S1. They have a core meaning, which is procedural, not conceptual, and their specific interpretation is “negotiated” by the context, both linguistic and conceptual. (p. 931) Obviously, inappropriate use of discourse markers can lead to miscomprehension. This is particularly true when communicating in a foreign language because some foreign language learners misuse, overuse, or underuse discourse markers (e.g. Rahimi, 2011; Rezvani Kalajahi, Abdullah, & Baki, 2012; Zhang, as cited in Lahuerta Martínez, 2004). In the next pages, some of the studies on the implementation of English discourse markers by EFL speakers have been presented. II. LITERATURE REVIEW The use of discourse markers by FL learners have been investigated in many studies so far. Discourse markers can be studied with regard to their frequency, their nature, and their effect on quality of a specific skill, such as writing; a classification which has been proposed by Rahimi (2011). Research studies on discourse markers can be divided into three general categories. The first category includes studies which has investigated the use of discourse markers with regard to one of the four macro-skills of speaking, listening, writing, and reading (e.g., Assadi Aidinlou & Shahrokhi mehr, 2012, with regard to EFL learners’ performance in close tests; Khazaee, 2012, with regard to EFL teachers’ use of discourse markers in classroom; Jalilfar, 2008, Lahuerta Martínez, 2002, 2004, & Rahimi, 2012, with regard to writing). In the following paragraphs, some of these studies will be presented. Heydari (2009) made an error analysis of the use of cohesive devices, which have conjunction in common with discourse markers, in the writing of EFL learners. His participants were 67 undergraduate students at Shiraz Islamic Azad University and they were further divided into three groups based on their proficiency levels. They had to write a text of at least 250 words about one of the memories, ISSN 1799-2591 Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 97-105, January 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0501.13 © 2015 ACADEMY PUBLICATION