{"title":"国际期刊摘要中的话语标记","authors":"Nurlaela Rahayati, Rina Herlina","doi":"10.25157/(jeep).v8i2.6426","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study investigated discourse markers used in international journal’ abstracts. This study was aimed at finding out: a) discourse markers used in abstracts of international journals, and b) the most dominant types of discourse markers used in international journal’ abstracts. The study employed six abstracts of international journals chosen randomly as the sample of the study. The study utilizes qualitative descriptive design. In data analysis, this study used Fraser’s theory (1999) that emphasized on four types, namely contrastive marker, elaborative marker, inferential marker, and temporal marker. In addition, the result shows that there are four types of discourse markers found in international journal’s abstracts. Elaborative marker are the most dominant types; marker and is the overuse in the abstracts. It occurred 56 times of the total six abstracts of international journals followed by 2 times for marker also, moreover, in addition, therefore, then, thus, so, or, then, 1 time for marker in addition, furthermore, for instance, beside, although, in contrast, in spite of, whereas, however, nonetheless, result indicate that, in conclusion, the result of, because, and finally. Moreover, the study found contrastive markers consistsed of although, in contrast, in spite of, whereas, however, and nonetheless. Elaborative markers consist of and, or, in addition, furthermore, for instance, beside, and moreover. Inferential markers consist of so, therefore, thus, then, result indicate that, the result of, in conclusion, and because. Temporal markers consist of finally. This study concludes that the most dominant types of discourse markers was elaborative markers due to the excessive use in the 6 abstracts. Keywords: abstract, discourse analysis, discourse markers, journal","PeriodicalId":360393,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English Education Program (JEEP)","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"DISCOURSE MARKERS IN ABSTRACTS OF INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS\",\"authors\":\"Nurlaela Rahayati, Rina Herlina\",\"doi\":\"10.25157/(jeep).v8i2.6426\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study investigated discourse markers used in international journal’ abstracts. This study was aimed at finding out: a) discourse markers used in abstracts of international journals, and b) the most dominant types of discourse markers used in international journal’ abstracts. The study employed six abstracts of international journals chosen randomly as the sample of the study. The study utilizes qualitative descriptive design. In data analysis, this study used Fraser’s theory (1999) that emphasized on four types, namely contrastive marker, elaborative marker, inferential marker, and temporal marker. In addition, the result shows that there are four types of discourse markers found in international journal’s abstracts. Elaborative marker are the most dominant types; marker and is the overuse in the abstracts. It occurred 56 times of the total six abstracts of international journals followed by 2 times for marker also, moreover, in addition, therefore, then, thus, so, or, then, 1 time for marker in addition, furthermore, for instance, beside, although, in contrast, in spite of, whereas, however, nonetheless, result indicate that, in conclusion, the result of, because, and finally. Moreover, the study found contrastive markers consistsed of although, in contrast, in spite of, whereas, however, and nonetheless. Elaborative markers consist of and, or, in addition, furthermore, for instance, beside, and moreover. Inferential markers consist of so, therefore, thus, then, result indicate that, the result of, in conclusion, and because. Temporal markers consist of finally. This study concludes that the most dominant types of discourse markers was elaborative markers due to the excessive use in the 6 abstracts. Keywords: abstract, discourse analysis, discourse markers, journal\",\"PeriodicalId\":360393,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of English Education Program (JEEP)\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of English Education Program (JEEP)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25157/(jeep).v8i2.6426\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of English Education Program (JEEP)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25157/(jeep).v8i2.6426","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本研究对国际期刊摘要中的话语标记语进行了研究。本研究旨在找出:a)国际期刊摘要中使用的话语标记,b)国际期刊摘要中使用的话语标记最主要的类型。该研究采用了随机选择的六份国际期刊摘要作为研究样本。本研究采用定性描述设计。在数据分析中,本研究采用了Fraser(1999)的理论,强调了四种类型,即对比标记、精细标记、推理标记和时间标记。此外,研究结果表明,国际期刊摘要中存在四种话语标记类型。精细标记是最主要的类型;标记和是摘要中过度使用的。在总共6篇国际期刊的摘要中,它出现了56次,其次是2次出现在marker also, moreover, addition, therefore, then, thus, so, or, then, 1次出现在marker addition, furthermore, for instance, beside, although, in contrast, in spite of, whereas,然而,尽管如此,result表示,总之,result of, because, and finally。此外,研究还发现对比标记包括although, in contrast, in spite of, whereas, however和尽管如此。精化标记由and, or, addition, furthermore,例如,beside, and moreover组成。推理标记由so, therefore, thus, then, result表示that, result of, in conclusion, and because组成。时间标记包括:本研究认为,由于6篇摘要的过度使用,话语标记类型中最占优势的是精细化标记。关键词:摘要;话语分析;话语标记
DISCOURSE MARKERS IN ABSTRACTS OF INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS
This study investigated discourse markers used in international journal’ abstracts. This study was aimed at finding out: a) discourse markers used in abstracts of international journals, and b) the most dominant types of discourse markers used in international journal’ abstracts. The study employed six abstracts of international journals chosen randomly as the sample of the study. The study utilizes qualitative descriptive design. In data analysis, this study used Fraser’s theory (1999) that emphasized on four types, namely contrastive marker, elaborative marker, inferential marker, and temporal marker. In addition, the result shows that there are four types of discourse markers found in international journal’s abstracts. Elaborative marker are the most dominant types; marker and is the overuse in the abstracts. It occurred 56 times of the total six abstracts of international journals followed by 2 times for marker also, moreover, in addition, therefore, then, thus, so, or, then, 1 time for marker in addition, furthermore, for instance, beside, although, in contrast, in spite of, whereas, however, nonetheless, result indicate that, in conclusion, the result of, because, and finally. Moreover, the study found contrastive markers consistsed of although, in contrast, in spite of, whereas, however, and nonetheless. Elaborative markers consist of and, or, in addition, furthermore, for instance, beside, and moreover. Inferential markers consist of so, therefore, thus, then, result indicate that, the result of, in conclusion, and because. Temporal markers consist of finally. This study concludes that the most dominant types of discourse markers was elaborative markers due to the excessive use in the 6 abstracts. Keywords: abstract, discourse analysis, discourse markers, journal