Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Journal

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) · pp. 198–207

DOI
10.15294/eej.v11i1.42801
ISSN
2087-0108, 2502-4566
Published
2021-06-20
Publisher
Universitas Negeri Semarang
Language
eng

Abstract

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

Collaboration network of the authors

40 authors · 157 co-authorship links · showing the 40 most connected

Hover or tap a name to highlight its co-authors. Double-click to open the author's page.

  • Universitas Halu Oleo
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Different organisations
  • Same organisation
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Thicker line = more joint articles · bigger circle = more articles
Show as table
Co-authorOrganisationJoint articles
Djoko SutopoAffiliation unknown10
Sri Wuli FitriatiAffiliation unknown9
Januarius MujiyantoAffiliation unknown8
Mursid SalehAffiliation unknown7
Sri Wuli FitriatiAffiliation unknown7
Dwi Anggani Linggar BharatiAffiliation unknown5
Issy YuliasriAffiliation unknown5
Abdurrachman FaridiAffiliation unknown5
Dwi Anggani Linggar BharatiAffiliation unknown4
Ahmad SofwanAffiliation unknown3
Hendi PratamaAffiliation unknown3
Warsono WarsonoAffiliation unknown3
Irawaty IrawatyUniversitas Halu Oleo2
Rini FidiyaniAffiliation unknown2
Eko MukmintoAffiliation unknown2
Zulfa SakhiyyaAffiliation unknown2
Rudi HartonoAffiliation unknown2
Frimadhona SyafriAffiliation unknown2
Rahayu Puji HaryantiAffiliation unknown2
Holy Latifah HanumAffiliation unknown1
SRI WAHYUNIAffiliation unknown1
Zumala HusnaAffiliation unknown1
Rini Susanti WulandariAffiliation unknown1
Hanum BestariAffiliation unknown1
Rahayu Fery AnitasariAffiliation unknown1
Edward Michael SimangunsongAffiliation unknown1
Hafidz DaffaAffiliation unknown1
Samuel Adi NugrohoAffiliation unknown1
Prahita Isnaini NingtyasAffiliation unknown1
Hendrikus Joko YuliantoAffiliation unknown1
Anindya PangestikaAffiliation unknown1
Hermin Anggrianing TyasAffiliation unknown1
Nurlaely HidayatiAffiliation unknown1
Lucky Kristina DamayantiAffiliation unknown1
Agus PrayogoAffiliation unknown1
Andika Farid AbdillahAffiliation unknown1
M. Syaeful Rizki UAffiliation unknown1

Affiliations come from OpenAlex; journal OAI-PMH metadata carries none. Authors without an OpenAlex ID are matched by name, which can merge or split people.

Metadata source: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej/oai, first harvested 5 Nov 2026, last seen 5 Nov 2026.
Original metadata (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>