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