The impact of discourse markers instruction on improving writing of intermediate EFL learners

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 36 Sayı: 3, 944 - 949, 13.05.2015

Fatemeh Kamalı , Hossein Noorı

Öz

Abstract Writing is one of the four skills in language learning and it should be paid more attention. Many devices, such as reference, substitution, ellipsis, and discourse marker, contribute to a discourse’s cohesion and coherence. In this regard, creating contexts which is value coherence in pragmatic level, and cohesion in semantic level is important. Knowledge about the discourse Markers (DMs), amongst other things, be used to improve writing skill. DMs are expression such as “now, well, so, which signal a sequential relationship between the current basic message and previous discourse. The present paper focuses on the instruction of the DMs and its effect on learners ‘ writing ability. To do this, two groups as control and experimental were chosen from two classes of Pezhvak English Language institute in Bojnourd, Iran. Both groups were asked to write an article about one topic. Then treatment sessions were conducted for experimental group while during that period, control group held back to receive such a treatment. Analyzing the misuse and inappropriateness of DMs occurring to their writing, pre-test, and investigating the relevant and suitable application of DMs appearing in their writing, post-test, and concludes with the suggestion that teaching text markers to learners should be paid more attention. And also the result reveals the effectiveness of teaching text markers to students in enhancing their awareness and sensitivity of discourse and consequently raising their writing levels.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Discourse markers, Cohesion, Coherence, writing

Kaynakça

• Brown, G. & G. Yule. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
• Press. Degand, L. (2009). On Describing Polysemous Discourse Markers. What does translation add to the picture? University Catholique de Louvain. [Online] Available: http://www.uclouvain.be/cps/ud/doc/vailbel/documents/Degand-polysemy-proofread.pdf
• Halliday, M.A. (1970). A course in spoken English: Intonation. London: Oxford University Press.
• Halliday, M.A. and R.Hasan. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
• Hatch, E. (1992) Discourse & Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Feng, L. (2010). Discourse Markers in English Writing. Journal of International Social
• Research, Vol. 3/11, Spring 2010. [Online] Available: http://www.sosyalarastimalar.com
• Fraser, B. ( 2002). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 14,
• Issue [Online] Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166 (90)90096-V
• Jalilifar, A.R. (2008). Discourse Markers in Composition Writings: The Case Of Iranian
• Learners Of English as a Foreign Language. Journal of CCSE, English Language Teaching, Vol.1, No.2, December 2008. [Online] Available: http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/460.
• Jucker, A. ( 2002), The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal Of Pragmatics, http://esweb.uzh.ch/ahjucker/Jucker_1993_well.pdf
• Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of L1-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implication for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 69- [Online] Available: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/10603743/1998. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90006-6
• Lee, K. (2000), Discourse Markers Well and Oh. University of Illinois at Urbana
• Champaign, United States. [Online] Available: http://exchanges.state.gov/media/oelp/teaching- pragmatics. Lichtenberk, F. (1991). On the gradualness of grammaticalization. In E.C. Traugott and B.Heine, (Eds.) Approaches for grammaticalization (pp.37-80). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Moradan, A. (1995). Significance of conjunctions as a cohesive device in teaching writing.
• Unpublished MA thesis. Allameh Tabatabai University. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markerts. Cambridg: Cambridge University Press.
• Traugott, E.C. (1995). Subjetification in grammaticalization. In D, Stein & S, Wright, (Eds.),
• Subjectivity and subjectivization: Linguistics perspectives (pp.31-54). Cambridge University press. Traugott, E.C. (1995 ). The role of the development of Discourse Markers in a Theory of
• Grammaticalization. Paper presented at ICHL XIL, Manchester, (1995), Version of 11/97.
• [Online] Available: http://www.staford.edu/~traugott/ect-papersonline.html Yule, G. (1985). The study of Language: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
• Table Means and Standard Deviation of Pre-test Groups N Mean Std. Deviation Experimental 30 15.38 1.73047 Control 30 15.30 1.61138
• Table Means and Standard Deviation of Post-test Groups N Mean Std. Deviation Experimental 30 17.06 1.19434 Control 30 15.90 1.26899