"Stand on the shoulders of giants."
In everyday communication, we rely on more than just words and grammar to make meaning. Often, what makes a conversation feel smooth, polite, or coherent are small, seemingly insignificant expressions like well, so, actually, you know, or I mean. These are called discourse markers—a crucial yet often overlooked aspect of communication.
Discourse markers are like road signs in conversation. They guide the listener through the speaker’s thoughts, signaling what’s coming next, how ideas relate, or how the speaker feels. They help manage the flow of talk, build rapport, express attitudes, or even soften disagreement. Although they are usually not grammatically necessary, their absence or misuse can make interaction feel robotic or rude.
Consider the difference between:
"I disagree."
"Well, I’m not sure I agree with that."
Both express disagreement, but the second one sounds more polite and open. That’s the pragmatic power of discourse markers.
Discourse markers are words or short phrases that help manage and organize spoken or written communication. They signal how parts of a conversation or text relate to each other. While they don’t change the literal meaning of a sentence, they influence how it is interpreted in context.
Examples: well, so, anyway, however, I think, you know, to be honest, in contrast, as a result
According to Schiffrin (1987), discourse markers are "sequentially dependent elements which bracket units of talk."
In other words, they are clues for how to navigate what the speaker or writer is saying. They appear in formal writing (e.g., however, therefore), in informal speech (e.g., like, you know), and across genres like academic lectures, business emails, TED Talks, and everyday chats.
Discourse markers serve many different functions depending on the context. Here are seven key categories:
Used to structure ideas, shift topics, or signal transitions.
Examples: first of all, then, now, right, anyway, finally, to sum up
"Now, let’s move on to the next point."
Used to add new points or show contrast.
Examples: and, also, in addition, but, however, although, on the other hand
"He’s very smart. However, he struggles with deadlines."
Used to show reasons or results.
Examples: because, since, so, therefore, thus, as a result
"The class was cancelled, so we went home."
Used to share opinions, evaluations, or feelings.
Examples: honestly, frankly, basically, obviously, to be honest
"Honestly, I didn’t enjoy the presentation."
Used to reduce the force of an utterance.
Examples: maybe, sort of, kind of, I guess, I think, perhaps
"I think we might need more time."
Used to correct or clarify speech.
Examples: I mean, that is, or rather, let me rephrase that
"She’s from Canada—I mean, she grew up there."
Used to manage the flow of conversation.
Examples: well, okay, right, so, you know, uh-huh, mm-hmm
"Well, that’s one way to look at it."
Let’s look at a short dialogue:
A: So, are you going to the meeting later?
B: Well, I was thinking about it, but I’ve got a lot to finish.
A: Okay. Maybe we can catch up after?
B: Yeah, sounds good.
In just a few lines, we see so, well, okay, and maybe—all helping shape the tone and flow. So introduces a question, well softens uncertainty, okay acknowledges, and maybe hedges a suggestion. Without them, the exchange might feel rushed or mechanical.
In formal writing, discourse markers guide readers through complex arguments. Academic texts often use:
Therefore, in contrast, moreover, in conclusion, for instance, nonetheless
Example:
"In contrast to previous research, this study found a positive correlation."
"Therefore, it can be concluded that instruction plays a crucial role."
Writers must choose markers that suit the tone and genre. Overusing and or but in essays can weaken clarity. Underusing transitions can confuse readers.
Discourse markers exist in all languages, but their form and function differ.
Vietnamese: mà, thì, à, nhé, cơ mà often carry interactive or emotional meaning.
In English, well may begin a hesitant answer. In Vietnamese, à might serve a similar function but is rarely translated literally.
L2 learners often:
Underuse discourse markers, making speech sound abrupt
Overuse markers like so, like, or you know
Transfer L1 markers inappropriately (e.g., direct translation of thì)
Discourse markers are key to:
Building fluency in spoken interaction
Increasing coherence in writing
Demonstrating pragmatic competence
Conveying attitudes, politeness, and engagement
Teaching discourse markers explicitly helps learners:
Speak more naturally
Manage conversation politely
Understand spoken input better
Discourse markers are not just filler words. They are powerful tools that:
Organize ideas
Signal relationships
Show stance
Manage politeness
Enhance understanding
Whether you're preparing a presentation, writing a paper, or chatting with a friend, using discourse markers well helps you sound more confident, considerate, and coherent.
Although discourse markers (DMs) are central to fluent and coherent English communication, they remain an underexplored area in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) research. While native-speaker use has been widely studied in corpus linguistics and interactional pragmatics, comparatively fewer studies have examined how EFL learners acquire, use, and reflect upon discourse markers in real-time communication. The following research topics offer entry points for applied linguistics and ELT graduate students seeking to contribute to this evolving area.
One promising area of inquiry concerns how EFL learners use discourse markers in spontaneous speech. Despite their communicative importance, many learners either overuse simple connectors such as and, but, and so, or fail to use markers that serve interpersonal or organizational functions. This gap in functional use can impact both fluency and perceived coherence.
Research Purpose: This topic aims to identify the types, frequencies, and functions of discourse markers used by EFL learners across proficiency levels, contributing to our understanding of interlanguage pragmatics.
Sample Questions:
What discourse markers are most commonly used by intermediate and advanced EFL learners in peer interactions?
How accurately are these markers used in terms of pragmatic function?
Methods and Data Sources:
Spoken data can be collected through role-plays, discussion tasks, or interview recordings. Transcriptions should be coded by type (e.g., additive, contrastive, interpersonal) and compared to reference corpora such as MICASE or VOICE.
Expected Outcomes:
Findings may reveal that while learners can use basic markers appropriately, their range is often limited. Higher-proficiency learners may demonstrate more native-like use, including turn-holding devices (well, you know) and hedges (I guess, maybe), whereas lower-level learners may show underuse or misplacement of markers.
A second potential focus is the relationship between discourse marker use and fluency. While discourse markers are often seen as indicators of fluency, the empirical evidence on their exact role remains limited, particularly in learner data.
Research Purpose: This topic explores whether varied and context-appropriate use of discourse markers correlates with greater fluency, either in terms of temporal measures or listener perception.
Sample Questions:
Do speakers who use a wider range of discourse markers demonstrate higher fluency?
How do listeners perceive speech with or without frequent use of discourse markers?
Methods and Data Sources:
Research can combine recorded speaking tasks (e.g., narrative retellings or IELTS practice) with rater evaluations and fluency metrics (e.g., speech rate, pausing, repairs). Discourse markers would be analyzed for frequency and function.
Expected Outcomes:
Learners who use markers to manage discourse (e.g., I mean, you know, so) may be perceived as more fluent. However, overuse of fillers (like, so) without functional intent could reduce perceived competence, highlighting the need for instruction in context-sensitive use.
In both academic and casual contexts, effective communication depends on appropriate register. Yet many EFL learners are unaware that different discourse markers are more suitable in certain contexts than others.
Research Purpose: This study seeks to examine whether learners adjust their discourse marker use when shifting between formal and informal speech, such as giving a presentation versus chatting with peers.
Sample Questions:
How do learners vary their use of discourse markers between academic and conversational English?
Are learners aware of register-appropriate discourse markers?
Methods and Data Sources:
Paired speech samples can be elicited from the same group of learners under two conditions: a formal task (e.g., class presentation) and an informal task (e.g., casual discussion). Reflection interviews can provide further insight into learners’ awareness.
Expected Outcomes:
Learners may rely heavily on formal connectors (moreover, therefore) across all tasks, or misuse informal markers in academic contexts. This study would offer insights into pragmatic instruction and support for register-sensitive speaking practice.
Despite their communicative importance, discourse markers are rarely taught systematically in the EFL classroom. This creates a clear pedagogical gap that warrants further research.
Research Purpose: This study investigates whether explicit instruction in the form, function, and appropriate use of discourse markers enhances learners’ spoken performance in terms of fluency, coherence, and interactional control.
Sample Questions:
How does explicit instruction on discourse markers affect learner output in speaking tasks?
What types of instructional strategies (e.g., noticing, reflection, corpus-based learning) yield the most improvement?
Methods and Data Sources:
A quasi-experimental design could be used with pre-test/post-test comparisons between a treatment group receiving discourse marker instruction and a control group following the standard syllabus. Performance can be analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Expected Outcomes:
Learners receiving instruction are likely to demonstrate more diverse and appropriate use of discourse markers in interactive contexts. This may also translate to greater confidence and communicative competence.
While linguistic behavior can be observed, learners’ metapragmatic awareness—how they perceive and understand their own use of discourse markers—is equally important but under-researched.
Research Purpose: This topic aims to uncover learner beliefs and attitudes toward discourse markers, particularly whether they view them as important for fluency, naturalness, or politeness.
Sample Questions:
What do learners believe about the use and importance of discourse markers in English communication?
Do learners feel confident using discourse markers, or do they avoid them due to uncertainty?
Methods and Data Sources:
Data can be collected through semi-structured interviews, reflective journals, or questionnaires. These perceptions can be triangulated with recorded speaking tasks to compare beliefs and actual use.
Expected Outcomes:
Learners may recognize the role of discourse markers but struggle with pragmatic appropriateness or fear sounding informal or ungrammatical. These insights can inform teacher training and materials development.
Finally, an important applied context is how learners manage academic talk—particularly structured presentations, which require clarity, coherence, and audience engagement.
Research Purpose: This study examines how learners use discourse markers to organize ideas, transition between points, and engage listeners during academic oral presentations.
Sample Questions:
Which discourse markers are most frequently used to structure academic speech?
How do discourse markers influence listener evaluations of clarity and professionalism?
Methods and Data Sources:
Recorded student presentations can be transcribed and coded for structural markers (first, next, in conclusion) and interpersonal markers (as you can see, you might notice). Peer and instructor evaluations can be collected using presentation rubrics.
Expected Outcomes:
Learners may over-rely on a narrow set of transitional markers while neglecting more nuanced interpersonal ones. Teaching materials can be enhanced to include more authentic models and scaffolded use of academic DMs.
Each of these research topics provides a focused opportunity to contribute to ongoing conversations in second language pragmatics, classroom-based research, and EFL pedagogy. By addressing existing gaps and drawing from authentic learner data, MA students can generate findings that inform both theory and practice in English language education.