How Does Explicit and Implicit Instruction of Formal Meta-discourse Markers Affect Learners’ Oral Proficiency?

محورهای موضوعی : Research Paper

Mohammad Ebrahim Moghaddasi ¹ , Mohammad Bavali ² , Fatemeh Behjat ³

1 - Department of Foreign Languages, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
2 - Department of Foreign Languages, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
3 - Department of English, Abadeh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Abadeh, Iran

تاریخ دریافت : 1399/01/18 تاریخ پذیرش : 1399/06/22 تاریخ انتشار : 1398/12/11

کلید واژه: Oral Proficiency, explicit instruction, implicit instruction, Meta-discourse markers,

چکیده مقاله :

Meta-discourse markers are an inevitable part of oral proficiency which improve both the quality and comprehension of learners’ speech. While studies of oral meta-discourse have been conducted since the 1980s in a European or US context, they have remained relatively untouched in Iran. Therefore, this study aimed to seek the impact of both explicit and implicit teaching of formal meta-discourse markers on EFL learners’ oral proficiency. To this end, the quantitative data were collected from ninety upper-intermediate students at Shiraz University Language Center. Two groups went through an instruction for an eight-session treatment. However the experimental group ‘B’ (N=45) were instructed the formal meta-discourse markers implicitly, the target formal meta-discourse markers were taught to the experimental group ‘A’ (N=45) explicitly. To compare the participants’ performances, an SOPI (Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview) posttest was administered. The results revealed that the instruction of meta-discourse markers had a positive effect on the learners’ oral outcome. Moreover, the findings showed that learners who received explicit method of teaching formal meta-discourse markers could perform better in speaking than learners who received implicit instruction. The findings can have pedagogical implications for EFL educators and materials developers to enhance learners’ oral proficiency. The findings also provide important insight into the effect of teaching discourse markers and raising learners’ awareness through explicit instruction to make pupils produce more cohesive and coherent speech.

منابع و مأخذ:

Akande. A. T. (2009). Discourse markers in the spontaneous speech of Nigerian university graduates. Lagos Papers in English Studies, 4, 28-37.
Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. Attention and awareness in foreign language learning, 259, 302.
Blakemore, D. (2001). Discourse and relevance theory. The handbook of discourse analysis, 100-118.
Brinton, L. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, D. H. (2007). Principles of language learning & teaching. (5th Eds.).
Burns, R.B., & Mason, D.A. (2002). Class composition and student achievement in elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 207–233.
Carter, R., & MNCARTHY, M. (1995). Grammar and the spoken language. Applied linguistics, 16(2), 141-158.
Clark, H. H., & Tree, J. E. F. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84(1), 73-111.
De la Fuente, M. J. (2009). The role of pedagogical tasks and focus on form in acquisition of discourse markers by advanced language learners. Little words. Their History, Phonology, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics, and Acquisition, 211-221.
Erman, B. (1987). Pragmatic expressions in English. A study of you know, you see and I mean in face-to-face conversation. Stockholm studies in English, 69, 1-238.
Fraser, B. (1988). Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38, 1, 19-33.
Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 383- 395.
Fuller, J. M. (2003). The influence of speaker role on discourse marker use. Journal of Pragmatics 35, 23-45.
Gupta, A. (2006). Blurred boundaries: The discourse of corruption, the culture of politics, and the imagined state. The anthropology of the state: A reader, 22(2), 211.
Hellermann, J., & Vergun, A. (2007). Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of pragmatics, 39(1), 157-179.
Hyland, K. (2005). Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education, 16(4), 363-377.
Innajih, A. (2007). The effect of conjunctive types on the English language reading comprehension of Libyan university students. ARECLS, 4.
Jucker, A., & Ziv, Y. (1998). Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Klerk, V. D. (2005). The use of actually in spoken Xhosa English: a corpus study. World Englishes, 24(3), 275-288.
Lee, B. and Jung, C. (2005). Discourse marker teaching in college conversation classrooms: Focus on well, you know, I mean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levelt, W. J. (1993). Lexical access in speech production. In Knowledge and language (pp. 241-251). Springer, Dordrecht.
Long, M. H. (1998). Focus on form Theory, research, and practice Michael H. Long Peter Robinson. Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 15, 15-41.
Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse (Vol. 138). John Benjamins Publishing.
Nazari, N. (2013). The effect of implicit and explicit grammar instruction on learners' achievements in receptive and productive modes. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 156-162.
Östman, J. O. (1981). A functional approach to English tags.
Poole, A. (2005). Focus on form instruction: Foundations, applications, and criticisms. The Reading Matrix, 5(1).
Rahimi, F., & Riasati, M. J. (2012). The effect of explicit instruction of discourse markers on the quality of oral output. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(1), 70-81.
Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 14(3), 367-81.
Rouchota, V. (1998). Procedural meaning and parenthetical discourse markers. PRAGMATICS AND BEYOND NEW SERIES, 97-126.
Sahebkheir, F., & Davatgari Asl, H. (2014). The role of input enhancement on using conjunctions in Iranian EFL learners' written performance. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(2), 115-120.
Sankoff, G., Thibault, P., Nagy, N., Blondeau, H., Fonollosa, M. O., & Gagnon, L. (1997). Variation in the use of discourse markers in a language contact situation.
Schiffrin, D. (1986). Discourse markers: Studies in interactional sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1987 ). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua 3(4), 227-265.
Swain, C. M. (1995). Black faces, black interests: The representation of African Americans in Congress. Harvard University Press.
Trillo, J. R. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of pragmatics, 34(6), 769-784.
Tyler, A. (1992). Discourse structure and the perception of incoherence in international teaching assistants' spoken discourse. Tesol Quarterly, 26(4), 713-729.