preloader

Article DetailsArticle Details

The Effect Of Explicit Teaching Of Discourse Markers On Iranian Efl Learners’ Pragmatic Fluency

The Effect Of Explicit Teaching Of Discourse Markers On Iranian Efl Learners’ Pragmatic Fluency

DATE PUBLISHED
Published August 22, 2015
SECTION
Articles

Author Details

Abstract

Research into classroom interaction and the study of non-native use of language based on an analysis of the discourse can be very instructive for two main reasons: first, it may contribute to achieving a better comprehending of what takes place inside the EFL classroom and second, it provides a worthy probability to analyze and the language used by non-native teachers and learners of EFL. An essential contribution of discourse analysis to language teachers was presented by` McCarthy (1991) who determined not only a sound theoretical framework and explanation according to the study conducted by him but also practical activities which sensitized teachers towards then language used inside their own classrooms.

Keywords

.

References

Amador, C., O’Riordan, S., & Chambers, A.

(2006). Integrating a corpus of classroom

discourse in language teacher education:

The case of discourse markers. ReCALL,

(1), 83-104.

Barron, A. 2003. Acquisition in interlanguage

pragmatics: Learning how to do things

with words in a study abroad

cotext(pp.270-281).Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.

Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints

on Relevance. NY, USA: Blackwell.

Brinton, L. (1996). Pragmatic markers in

English. Grammaticalization and

discourse functions. Berlin/New York:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Chang, S. (2004). A case study of EFL

Teachers in Taiwan: Identities,

instructional practices and intercultural

awareness. Dissertation

AbstractsInternational: The Humanities

and Social Sciences, 65(4), 1218-A-

-A.

Cots, J., & Diaz, J. (2005). Constructing

social relationships and linguistic

knowledge through non-native speaking

teacher talk. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Nonnative

Language Teachers: Perceptions,

Challenges and Contributions to the

Profession (pp. 85-106). New York:

Springer.

De Fina, A. (1997). An analysis of Spanish

bienas a marker of classroom

management in teacher-studentLlurda, E. (2005). Non-native language

teachers: Perceptions, challenges and

contributions to the profession. New

York: Springer.

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for

language teachers. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Muller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in

native and non- native English

discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pineda, C. (2004). Critical thinking in the efl

classroom: The search for a pedagogical

alternative to improve English learning.

Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura,

(15), 45-80.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers.

(Studies in International Sociolinguistics

. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Schiffrin, D. (2001). Discourse markers:

Language, meaning and context. In D.

Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton

(Eds.), The handbook of discourse

analysis (pp. 54-74). Massachusetts:

Blackwell Publishers.

Starkweather, Woodruff C. (1987) Fluency

and stuttering(pp. 6-13). Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Taguchi, N. 2007a. “Task difficulty in oral

speech act production”. Applied

Linguistics 28 (1): 113-135.

Taguchi, N. 2007b. “Developing of speed and

accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in

English as a foreign language”. TESOL

Quarterly 41 (2): 313-338.House, J. 1996. “Developing pragmatic

fluency in English as a foreign language

:Routins and metapragmatic awareness”.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition

(2): 225-252.

House, J. 2003. “Teaching and learning

pragmatic fluency in a foreign language:

The case of English as a lingua

Franca”. In Pragmatic Competence and

foreign language teaching, A. Martinez-

Flor, E. Uso-Juan and A. Fernandez-

Guerra (eds.), 133-158. Castellon: Servei

de.

Jucker, A., &Ziv, Y. (1998). Discourse

markers: Descriptions and theory.

Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.Publications de la

UniversitatJaume I.

Kanagy, R. 1999. “Interactional routinesas a

mechanism for L2 acquisition and

socialization in an immersion context”.

Journal of Pragmatics 31: 1467-1492.

Kasper, G. 1995. “Routines and indirection in

interlanguage pragmatics”. In

Pragmatics and language learning,

monograph series vol. 6, L. F. Bouton

(ed.), 59-78. Urbana-Champaign, II:

Division of English as an International

Language, University of Illinois,

Urbana-Champaign.

Koponen, M., &Riggenbach, H. (2000).

Overview: Varying perspectives on

fluency. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.),

Perspectives on fluency (pp. 5–24). Ann

Arbor, MI: University of Michigan

Press.Van Dijk, T. (1997). Discourse as structure

and process. London: Sage Publishers.

Walsh, S. (2006), Investigating classroom

discourse, New York: Routledge.

Subscribe
to our newsletter

Subscribe
to our newsletter