Advertisement

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

  • Shanru Yang
Chapter
Part of the Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics book series (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.

Keywords

Discourse markers Classroom discourse EFL teacher talk Multi-layered analytical approach Conversation analysis Corpus linguistics 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Aijmer, K., & Stenström, A. B. (2005). Approaches to spoken interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1743–1751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arminen, I. (2005). Institutional interaction: Studies of talk at work. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  7. Bazeley, P. (2009). Integrating analyses in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 203–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beach, W. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 325–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Brinton, L. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  20. Elder, C., & Golombek, P. (2003). The effects of organization markers on ESL learners’ text understanding. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 749–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fassnacht, C. (2012). Transana (Version 2.52). Wisconsin: Wisconsin Centre for Education Research.Google Scholar
  22. Fischer, K. (2006). Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Fraser, B. (1988). Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungaria, 38, 19–33.Google Scholar
  26. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogical settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. H. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  34. Haakana, M. (2002). Laughter in medical interaction: From quantification to analysis, and back. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(2), 207–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Henzl, V. (1973). Linguistic register of foreign language instruction. Language Learning, 23, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jung, H. E. (2003). The role of discourse signalling cues in second language listening comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 562–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kasper, G. (1985). Repair in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(2), 200–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Knight, D. (2009). A multi-modal corpus approach to the analysis of backchanneling behaviour. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
  40. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Lee-Goldman, R. (2011). No as a discourse marker. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10), 2627–2649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maschler, Y. (2009). Metalanguage in interaction: Hebrew discourse markers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McCarthy, M. J. (1998). Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. McCarthy, M. J. (2003). Talking back: “small” interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language in Social Interaction, 36(1), 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McEnery, T., & Wilson, A. (1996). Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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
  51. O’Keeffe, A., Clancy, B., & Adolphs, B. (2011). Introducing pragmatics in use. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. 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
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Polat, B. (2011). Investigating acquisition of discourse markers through a developmental learner corpus. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(15), 3745–3756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Romero-Trillo, J. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 769–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Romero-Trillo, J. (2012). Pragmatic markers. In Encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 4522–4528). Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley.Google Scholar
  57. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 499–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Schleef, E. (2008). Gender and academic discourse: global restrictions and local possibilities. Language in Society, 37, 515–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 107, 227–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Scott, M. (2008). WordSmith tools (Version 5). Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
  64. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Tay, D. (2011). Discourse markers as metaphor signalling devices in psychotherapeutic talk. Language and Communication, 31(4), 310–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education, Communication and Language SciencesNewcastle UniversityNewcastleUK

Personalised recommendations