Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interaction and Codability: A Multi-layered Analytical Approach to Discourse Markers in Teacher’s Spoken Discourse

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2014

Part of the book series: Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics ((YCLP,volume 2))

Abstract

This chapter introduces a novel multi-layered analytical approach combining corpus linguistics (CL), conversation analysis (CA), and second language (L2) classroom modes analysis (Walsh, Investigating classroom discourse, Routledge, London/New York, 2006; Exploring classroom discourse: language in action, Routledge, London, 2011) for the investigation of discourse markers (henceforth DMs) in the spoken discourse of teachers. In response to the DMs’ multifunctional nature (Jucker and Ziv, Discourse markers: introduction. In; Jucker AH, Ziv Y (eds) Discourse markers: descriptions and theory, John Benjamins B.V., Amsterdam, pp 1–12, 1998), it suggests an integrated approach to examine both the macro and micro contexts of DMs in teacher-led classroom interaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adolphs, S., Crawford, P., Brown, B., Sahota, O., & Carter, R. A. (2004). Applying corpus linguistics in a health care context. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 44–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aijmer, K., & Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (2011). Pragmatic markers. In J. Zienkowski, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Discursive pragmatics (pp. 223–247). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aijmer, K., & Stenström, A. B. (2005). Approaches to spoken interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1743–1751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amador Moreno, C. P., O’Riordan, S., & Chambers, A. (2006). Integrating a corpus of classroom discourse in language teacher education: The case of discourse markers. Recall, 18(1), 83–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arminen, I. (2005). Institutional interaction: Studies of talk at work. Surrey: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazeley, P. (2009). Integrating analyses in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 203–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beach, W. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 325–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beach, W. (1995). Preserving and constraining options: “Okays” and ‘official’ priorities in medical interviews. In G. H. Morris & R. J. Chenail (Eds.), The talk of the clinic: Explorations in the analysis of medial and therapeutic discourse (pp. 259–289). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breen, M. P. (1998). Navigating the discourse: On what is learned in the language classroom. In W. A. Renandya & G. M. Jacobs (Eds.), Learners and language learning (pp. 115–143). Singapore: SEAMO Regional Language Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinton, L. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Campanelli, P., Channell, J., McAulay, L., Renouf, A., & Thomas, R. (1994). Training: An exploration of the word and the concept with an analysis of the implications for survey design (Research Series No. 30). Sheffield: Employment Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dailey-O’Cain, J., & Liebscher, G. (2006). Language learners’ use of discourse markers as evidence for a mixed code. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10(1), 89–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalle, T., & Inglis, M. (1990). ITA “teacher talk” – Discourse markers as guideposts to learning (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 353 827). Washington, D.C.: ERIC.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Fina, A. (1997). An analysis of Spanish bien as a marker of classroom management in teacher student interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 337–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elder, C., & Golombek, P. (2003). The effects of organization markers on ESL learners’ text understanding. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 749–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassnacht, C. (2012). Transana (Version 2.52). Wisconsin: Wisconsin Centre for Education Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, K. (2006). Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flowerdew, J., & Tarouza, S. (1995). The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. Journal of Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(4), 435–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank-Job, B. (2006). A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 395–413). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. (1988). Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungaria, 38, 19–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung, L. (2003). The use and teaching of discourse markers in Hong Kong: Students’ production and teachers’ perspectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham, Nottingham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogical settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 338–366). New York: Appleton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed – Method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation Policy Analysis, 11, 255–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, L. E. (2010). A corpus comparison of the use of I don’t know by British and New Zealand speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2282–2296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. H. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haakana, M. (2002). Laughter in medical interaction: From quantification to analysis, and back. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(2), 207–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henzl, V. (1973). Linguistic register of foreign language instruction. Language Learning, 23, 207–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jucker, A. H., & Ziv, Y. (1998). Discourse markers: Introduction. In A. H. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory (pp. 1–12). Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, H. E. (2003). The role of discourse signalling cues in second language listening comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 562–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasper, G. (1985). Repair in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(2), 200–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, D. (2009). A multi-modal corpus approach to the analysis of backchanneling behaviour. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee-Goldman, R. (2011). No as a discourse marker. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10), 2627–2649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leech, G. (2004). Recent grammatical change in English: Data, description, theory. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), Advances in corpus linguistics: Papers from the 23rd international conference on English language research on computerized corpora (ICAME 23) (pp. 61–81). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llinares-García, A., & Romero-Trillo, J. (2008). The pragmatic role of discourse markers of native and non-native teachers in CLIL contexts. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente (pp. 191–204). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maschler, Y. (1998). Rotsèlishmoakéta? Wanna hear something weird/funny? [lit. a segment]: Segmenting Israeli Hebrew talk-in-action. In A. H. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory (pp. 13–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Maschler, Y. (2009). Metalanguage in interaction: Hebrew discourse markers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, M. J. (1998). Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, M. J. (2003). Talking back: “small” interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language in Social Interaction, 36(1), 33–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEnery, T., & Wilson, A. (1996). Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Keeffe, A., & Walsh, S. (2012). Applying corpus linguistics and conversation analysis in the investigation of small group teaching in higher education. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 159–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keeffe, A., Clancy, B., & Adolphs, B. (2011). Introducing pragmatics in use. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analysing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351–383). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Othman, Z. (2010). The use of okay, right and yeah in academic lectures by native speaker lecturers: Their “anticipated” and “real” meanings. Discourse Studies, 12(5), 665–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polat, B. (2011). Investigating acquisition of discourse markers through a developmental learner corpus. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(15), 3745–3756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero-Trillo, J. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 769–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero-Trillo, J. (2012). Pragmatic markers. In Encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 4522–4528). Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 499–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schiffrin, D. (2001). Discourse markers: Language, meaning and context. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 54–75). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleef, E. (2008). Gender and academic discourse: global restrictions and local possibilities. Language in Society, 37, 515–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 107, 227–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, M. (2008). WordSmith tools (Version 5). Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, J. (2004). Intuition and annotation: The discussion continues. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), Advances in corpus linguistics (pp. 39–59). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tay, D. (2011). Discourse markers as metaphor signalling devices in psychotherapeutic talk. Language and Communication, 31(4), 310–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trester, A. M. (2009). Discourse marker ‘oh’ as a means for realizing the identity potential of constructed dialogue in interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13(2), 147–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, S., Morton, T., & O’Keeffe, A. (2011). Analyzing university spoken interaction: A CL/CA approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(3), 326–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Professor Lian Zhang, who has authorised me to use the data from China’s National Social Science Fund Project “EFL Classroom Discourse Research and Teacher Development” (Ref. No. 07BYY036). My special thanks to Professor Steve Walsh, Dr. Dawn Knight, Dr. Jesús Romero-Trillo, and Alastair Krzyzosiak for their advice and support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK

    Shanru Yang

Authors
  1. Shanru Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shanru Yang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Filología Inglesa Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Jesús Romero-Trillo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Yang, S. (2014). Interaction and Codability: A Multi-layered Analytical Approach to Discourse Markers in Teacher’s Spoken Discourse. In: Romero-Trillo, J. (eds) Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2014. Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06007-1_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation