Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The Acquisition of Discourse Markers by ESP Undergraduates: Uncovering Sustainable Practices in Descriptive Essay Writing Cover

The Acquisition of Discourse Markers by ESP Undergraduates: Uncovering Sustainable Practices in Descriptive Essay Writing

Sustainable Multilingualism
Volume 27 (2025): Issue 1 (December 2025)
By: Oleksandr Kapranov and  Oksana Voloshyna  
Open Access
|Dec 2025

References

  1. Aidinlou, N. A., & Mehr, H. S. (2012). The effect of discourse markers instruction on EFL learners’ writing. World Journal of Education, 2(2), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v2n2p10.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  2. Andayani, W. (2024). Discourse connectors in the ESP students’ writing: A preliminary study. ESTEEM: Journal of English Education Study Programme, 7(2), 711–718. https://doi.org/10.31851/esteem.v7i2.16245.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  3. Anthony, L. (2022). AntConc Version 4.0.11. Waseda University.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  4. Appel, R., & McKay, R. (2025). The value of interactional metadiscourse in university level writing: Differences between high and low performing undergraduate business students. English for Specific Purposes, 79, 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2025.03.002.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. Arslan, S., & Curle, S. (2024). Institutionalising English as a foreign language teachers for global sustainability: Perceptions of education for sustainable development in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Research, 125, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102353.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. Bhatia, V. K. (1991). A genre-based approach to ESP materials. World Englishes, 10(2), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1991.tb00148.x.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  7. Catenaccio, P. (2025). AI and discourse analysis: Implications for ESP genre pedagogy in EFL settings. International Journal of Language Studies, 19(2), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15250799.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  8. Cheng, A. (2006). Understanding learners and learning in ESP genre-based writing instruction. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.07.002.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  9. Ciocoi-Pop, M. -M. (2020). Reading comprehension for ESL students. Processes of perceiving texts. International Conference Knowledge-Based Organization, 26(2), 278–282. https://doi.org/10.2478/kbo-2020-0090.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  10. del Pozo, M. Á. (2016). Discourse markers and lecture structure: Their role in listening comprehension and EMI lecturer training. Language Value, 8(1), 26–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2016.8.3.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  11. del Saz Rubio, M. M. (2011). A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of Agricultural Sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.002.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  12. Deroey, K. L., & Taverniers, M. (2012). Just remember this: Lexicogrammatical relevance markers in lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 31(4), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2012.05.001.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  13. Fatalaki, J. A., Amini, E., & Mirzaee, M. (2014). The role of explicit interactive metadiscourse markers’ instruction in Iranian EAP learners’ reading comprehension. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics, 1, 14–24.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3), 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  15. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers?. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  16. Fraser, B. (2006). Towards a theory of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 189–204). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588_012.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  17. Fraser, B. (2009). An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(2), 293–320. https://doi.org/10.1163/187730909X12538045489818.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  18. Gardner, S., & Nesi, H. (2013). A classification of genre families in university student writing. Applied linguistics, 34(1), 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams024.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  19. Hall, A. (2007). Do discourse connectives encode concepts or procedures? Linguist, 117, 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.10.003.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. Hyland, K. (1990). A genre description of the argumentative essay. RELC Journal, 21(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829002100105.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. Hyland, K. (1996). Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum. System, 24(4), 477–490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(96)00043-7.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  22. Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00124-8.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  23. Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  24. Hyland, K. (2012). ESP and writing. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes (pp. 95–113). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118339855.ch5.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  25. Hyland, K. (2019). Second Language Writing. Cambridge University Press.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  26. Hyland, K. (2022). English for specific purposes: What is it and where is it taking us?. ESP Today-Journal of English for Specific Purposes at Tertiary Level, 10(2), 202–220. https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2022.10.2.1.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  27. Hyland, K. (2023). English for academic purposes and discourse analysis. In M. Handford & J. P. Gee (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 509–521). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003035244.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  28. Hyland, K. (2024). Genre-based instruction and corpora. Tesol Quarterly, 58(3), 1227–1234. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3273.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  29. Hyland, K. (2025). ESP and writing. In S. Starfield & C. A. Hafner (Eds.), The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes (pp. 89–106). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119985068.ch5.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  30. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2021). Delivering relevance: The emergence of ESP as a discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 64, 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.06.002.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  31. IBM. (2011). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. IBM.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  32. Jucker, A. H., & Ziv, Y. (2011). Discourse markers: Introduction. In A. H. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory (pp. 1–12). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.03juc.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  33. Junina, A. K. (2025). Displaced but not replaced: Challenges, adaptations, and resilience of higher education in Gaza in the context of war and scholasticide. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2025.2532022.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  34. Kapranov, O. (2017). Discourse markers in academic writing in EFL by Swedish pre-service secondary school teachers of English. Logos & Littera: Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text, 4 (1), 21–39.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  35. Kapranov, O. (2018). The impact of implicit instruction upon the use of English discourse markers in written tasks at the advanced beginners’ level of EFL proficiency. Baltic Journal of English Language, Literature and Culture, 8, 56–73. https://doi.org/10.22364/BJELLC.08.2018.04.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  36. Kapranov, O. (2021). Discursive representations of education for sustainable development in policy documents by English medium instruction schools in Estonia and Norway. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 12(1), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.2478/dcse-2021-0005.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  37. Kapranov, O., & Voloshyna, O. (2023). Learning English under the sounds of air raid sirens: Analysing undergraduate EFL students’ sustainable learning practices. Sustainable Multilingualism/Darnioji daugiakalbystė, 23, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.2478/sm-2023-0011.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  38. Kim, J., Kim, E. G., & Kweon, S. O. (2018). Challenges in implementing English-medium instruction: Perspectives of humanities and social sciences professors teaching engineering students. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.03.005.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  39. Kirsner, K., Bujalka, H., Kapranov, O., & Dunn, J. (2007). How long does it take to learn a second language? Forum on Public Policy, 3(2), 161–170.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  40. Knezović, A. (2017). Transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP) essay writing competition: Case study for exploring writing skills issues in English for Specific Purposes (ESP). In M. H. Bilgin, H. Danis, E. Demir, & U. Can (Eds.), Eurasian Business Perspectives: Proceedings of the 20th Eurasia Business and Economics Society Conference-Vol. 1 (pp. 315–343). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67913-6_22.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  41. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied linguistics, 18(2), 141–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.2.141.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  42. Lasagabaster, D., & Bier, A. (2025). An examination of the use of spoken interactional metadiscourse markers in EMI lectures from different disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 79, 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2025.05.003.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  43. Luchenko, O., & Yurchenko, V. (2023). Entering the teaching profession in Slovakia. Educational Challenges, 28(1), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.34142/2709-7986.2023.28.1.09.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  44. Luchenko, O., Doronina, O., & Chervinko, Y. (2024). The use of English medium instruction in multilingual classrooms in Japanese language teaching. Advanced Education, 12(24), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.297391.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  45. Mallows, D. (2002). Non-linearity and the observed lesson. ELT Journal, 56(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.1.3.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  46. Mariotti, C. (2024). English for Specific Purposes and problem-based learning: Strengths and opportunities. International Journal of English Linguistics, 14(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v14n2p1.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  47. Martínez, A. C. L. (1996). The exploitation of the rhetorical structure of the text to improve ESP reading comprehension. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 3, 187–198.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  48. Martínez, A. C. L. (2006). Analysis of the relationship between teaching discourse markers to ESP learners and their reading comprehension performance. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 12, 171–190.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  49. Miciano, R., Gocheco, P., Bensal, E., & Abatayo, J. (2011). The use of discourse markers in lectures: Its effect on academic listening comprehension. In S. N. Dita (Ed.), Issues and Trends in Applied Linguistics in the Philippines: A Decade in Retrospect (pp. 42–49). Anvil Publishing.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  50. Mizin, K., Slavova, L. (2025). Particularities of reproducing emotion concepts of the Ukrainian “Cult of Suffering” in the German linguo-culture: A corpus-based study. Alfred Nobel University Journal of Philology, 1(29), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.32342/3041-217X-2025-1-29–9.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  51. Mohseni, A., & Golestani, M. (2015). Analysis of contrastive discourse markers implementation in ESP books of computer science developed by non-native (Iranian) and native (British) authors. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(6), 128–144.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  52. Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2018). The BAWE corpus and genre families classification of assessed student writing. Assessing Writing, 38, 51–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.06.005.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  53. Okan, Z., & Özer, H. Z. (2018). Discourse markers in EFL classrooms: A corpus-driven research. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(1), 50–66.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  54. Pavlović, T. V., & Đorđević, D. (2020). The use of metadiscourse markers in essays written by ESP university students. Годишњак Филозофског факултета у Новом Саду, 45(5), 233–249. https://doi.org/10.19090/gff.2020.5.233-249.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  55. Pourdana, N., & Asghari, S. (2021). Different dimensions of teacher and peer assessment of EFL learners’ writing: Descriptive and narrative genres in focus. Language Testing in Asia, 11(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-021-00122-9.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  56. Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge University Press.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  57. Roothooft, H., Breeze, R., & Meyer, M. (2025). English writing competence and EMI performance: student and expert perceptions of academic writing in EMI. ESP Today, 13(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2025.13.1.1.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  58. Schiffrin, D. (2005). Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 54–75). Blackwell.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  59. Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 107, 227–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  60. Šliogerienė, J., Darginavičienė, I., Suchanova, J., Gulbinskienė, D., & Jakučionytė, V. (2025). Problem-based learning in developing students’ communicative skills and creativity in teaching English for specific purposes. Creativity Studies, 18(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2025.22343.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  61. Speelman, C. P., & Kirsner, K. (2006). Transfer of training and its effect on learning curves. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 2(2), 52–65. https://doi.org10.20982/tqmp.02.2.p052.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  62. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  63. UNESCO. (2021). UN Decade of ESD. https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-sustainable-development/what-is-esd/un-decade-of-esd.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  64. Uzun, K. (2024). Enhancing written communication skills for academic purposes. In E. Z. Topkaya & H. Çelik (eds.) Teaching English for Academic Purposes: Theory into Practice (pp. 169–190). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-72545-6_8.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  65. van Dijk, T. (1979). Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(79)90019-5.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  66. Zhang, T., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Taking stock of a genre-based pedagogy: Sustaining the development of EFL students’ knowledge of the elements in argumentation and writing improvement. Sustainability, 13(21), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111616.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sm-2025-0015 | Journal eISSN: 2335-2027 | Journal ISSN: 2335-2019
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 156 - 184
Published on: Dec 12, 2025
Published by: Vytautas Magnus University, Institute of Foreign Language
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Keywords:
descriptive essays,
discourse markers (DMs),
English for Specific Purposes (ESP),
sustainable practices
Related subjects:
Linguistics and semiotics,
Applied linguistics,
Language assessment and testing,
Language policy and planning,
Theoretical frameworks and disciplines,
Bilingualism and multilingualism,
Second language acquisition

© 2025 Oleksandr Kapranov, Oksana Voloshyna, published by Vytautas Magnus University, Institute of Foreign Language
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 27 (2025): Issue 1 (December 2025)Next article