Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Jurnal

Comparison of the Use of Discourse Markers in English Speeches between Non-Native and Native Speakers of English

English Education Journal · Vol. 11 No. 2 (2021) · hlm. 198–207

DOI
10.15294/eej.v11i1.42801
ISSN
2087-0108, 2502-4566
Terbit
2021-06-20
Penerbit
Universitas Negeri Semarang
Bahasa
eng

Abstrak

This study revealed the comparison of the use of discourse markers in English speeches between non-native and native speakers of English. The study focused on the types of discourse markers, the similarities and the differences between non-native and native speakers in using discourse markers. This study employed a qualitative research design with the data from the spoken discourse. The findings of the study showed that there were ten sub-categories of discourse markers that are practiced by non-native speakers, namely: assessment marker, manner of a speaking marker, evidential markers, hearsay markers, contrastive discourse markers, elaborative discourse markers, inferential discourse markers, discourse management markers, topic orientation markers, and attention markers. On the contrary, there were nine sub-categories of discourse markers that existed in English speeches, especially delivered by the native speakers such as assessment marker, manner of a speaking marker, evidential markers, hearsay markers, contrastive discourse markers, elaborative discourse markers, inferential discourse markers, topic orientation markers, and attention markers. The total of discourse markers produced by the non-native speakers was 301 utterances while native speakers of English were 269 utterances. Therefore, it is concluded that discourse markers were useful in English speeches either by non-native speakers or native speakers

Jaringan kolaborasi para penulis

40 penulis · 159 tautan kepenulisan bersama · menampilkan 40 yang paling banyak terhubung

Arahkan kursor atau ketuk sebuah nama untuk menyorot rekan penulisnya. Klik dua kali untuk membuka halaman penulis.

  • Universitas Halu Oleo
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Organisasi berbeda
  • Organisasi sama
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Garis lebih tebal = lebih banyak artikel bersama · lingkaran lebih besar = lebih banyak artikel
Tampilkan sebagai tabel
Rekan penulisOrganisasiArtikel bersama
Djoko SutopoAfiliasi tidak diketahui10
Sri Wuli FitriatiAfiliasi tidak diketahui9
Januarius MujiyantoAfiliasi tidak diketahui8
Mursid SalehAfiliasi tidak diketahui7
Sri Wuli FitriatiAfiliasi tidak diketahui7
Dwi Anggani Linggar BharatiAfiliasi tidak diketahui5
Issy YuliasriAfiliasi tidak diketahui5
Abdurrachman FaridiAfiliasi tidak diketahui5
Dwi Anggani Linggar BharatiAfiliasi tidak diketahui4
Ahmad SofwanAfiliasi tidak diketahui3
Hendi PratamaAfiliasi tidak diketahui3
Rahayu Puji HaryantiAfiliasi tidak diketahui3
Warsono WarsonoAfiliasi tidak diketahui3
Irawaty IrawatyUniversitas Halu Oleo2
Rini FidiyaniAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Eko MukmintoAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Zulfa SakhiyyaAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Rudi HartonoAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Frimadhona SyafriAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
bintang priyanto putriAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Holy Latifah HanumAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
SRI WAHYUNIAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Zumala HusnaAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Rini Susanti WulandariAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Hanum BestariAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Rahayu Fery AnitasariAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Edward Michael SimangunsongAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Hafidz DaffaAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Samuel Adi NugrohoAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Prahita Isnaini NingtyasAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Hendrikus Joko YuliantoAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Anindya PangestikaAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Hermin Anggrianing TyasAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Nurlaely HidayatiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Lucky Kristina DamayantiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Agus PrayogoAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Andika Farid AbdillahAfiliasi tidak diketahui1

Afiliasi berasal dari OpenAlex; metadata OAI-PMH jurnal tidak memuatnya. Penulis tanpa ID OpenAlex dicocokkan berdasarkan nama, sehingga dua orang bisa tergabung atau satu orang bisa terpisah.

Sumber metadata: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej/oai, pertama di-harvest 5 Nov 2026, terakhir terlihat 5 Nov 2026.
Metadata asli (oai_dc) 
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en-US">Comparison of the Use of Discourse Markers in English Speeches between Non-Native and Native Speakers of English</dc:title>
	<dc:creator>Yulita, Eva</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Rukmini, Dwi</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Widhiyanto, Widhiyanto</dc:creator>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en-US">This study revealed the comparison of the use of discourse markers in English speeches between non-native and native speakers of English. The study focused on the types of discourse markers, the similarities and the differences between non-native and native speakers in using discourse markers. This study employed a qualitative research design with the data from the spoken discourse. The findings of the study showed that there were ten sub-categories of discourse markers that are practiced by non-native speakers, namely: assessment marker, manner of a speaking marker, evidential markers, hearsay markers, contrastive discourse markers, elaborative discourse markers, inferential discourse markers, discourse management markers, topic orientation markers, and attention markers. On the contrary, there were nine sub-categories of discourse markers that existed in English speeches, especially delivered by the native speakers such as assessment marker, manner of a speaking marker, evidential markers, hearsay markers, contrastive discourse markers, elaborative discourse markers, inferential discourse markers, topic orientation markers, and attention markers. The total of discourse markers produced by the non-native speakers was 301 utterances while native speakers of English were 269 utterances. Therefore, it is concluded that discourse markers were useful in English speeches either by non-native speakers or native speakers</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en-US">Universitas Negeri Semarang</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2021-06-20</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:type xml:lang="en-US">Peer-reviewed Article</dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/eej/article/view/42801</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.15294/eej.v11i1.42801</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en-US">English Education Journal; Vol 11 No 2 (2021): June 2021; 198-207</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2087-0108</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2502-4566</dc:source>
	<dc:source>10.15294/eej.v11i2</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/eej/article/view/42801/18086</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en-US">Copyright (c) 2021 English Education Journal</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>