Overuse, Misuse, and Underuse of Contrastive Discourse Markers in Argumentative and Comparison–contrast Essays by Libyan EFL Undergraduates

Abstract

This study investigates Libyan EFL undergraduates’ use of contrastive discourse markers in academic writing, with a particular focus on argumentative and comparison–contrast essays. The study analysed a corpus of 40 undergraduate essays using Fraser’s framework, combining quantitative frequency counts with qualitative contextual analysis. The analysis revealed three interconnected patterns: overuse, misuse, and underuse. Students relied heavily on a narrow set of markers, most notably but and however, which were often inserted repetitively or used in contexts where other rhetorical relations, such as inference or elaboration, were required. At the same time, the relative absence of varied contrastive markers limited the development of contrast across extended stretches of text, producing arguments that appeared linear rather than dialogic. Taken together, these findings highlight a deeper discourse-level difficulty: learners treat contrastive markers as interchangeable signals of transition rather than as rhetorical tools for structuring argument and guiding reader interpretation. This has significant pedagogical implications. Instruction should move beyond presenting markers as formal items and instead emphasise their functional distinctions, contextualised practice, and analysis of authentic texts. By addressing overuse, misuse, and underuse at the discourse level, students may develop a more nuanced control of contrast, resulting in writing that is more coherent, persuasive, and rhetorically effective.