SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies / 2018 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 1

Discourse markers in EFL classrooms: A corpus-driven research

İngilizce sınıflarında söylem belirleyicileri: Derlem yönlendirmeli bir araştırma

Zuhal OKAN
Havva ZORLUEL ÖZER
Pages
50–66
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Corpus-driven research results indicated that Turkish teachers used 29different discourse markers and native teachers used 37 different discourse markers in their classroom discourse.It was also seen that Turkish teachers underused most discourse markers compared to native teachers in EFLclassrooms.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims at determining discourse markers used by Turkish teachers and native teachers in EFLclassrooms and comparing these items in terms of variety and frequency.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To reach the objectives of the presentstudy, two seperate corpora were compiled through audio-recordings collected from two Turkish and two nativeEFL teachers‟ lectures.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Corpus-driven research results indicated that Turkish teachers used 29different discourse markers and native teachers used 37 different discourse markers in their classroom discourse.It was also seen that Turkish teachers underused most discourse markers compared to native teachers in EFLclassrooms.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study aims at determining discourse markers used by Turkish teachers and native teachers in EFLclassrooms and comparing these items in terms of variety and frequency. To reach the objectives of the presentstudy, two seperate corpora were compiled through audio-recordings collected from two Turkish and two nativeEFL teachers‟ lectures. AntConc (2014), a specific concordance program designed for text analysis, was utilizedin the analysis of the corpus data. Corpus-driven research results indicated that Turkish teachers used 29different discourse markers and native teachers used 37 different discourse markers in their classroom discourse.It was also seen that Turkish teachers underused most discourse markers compared to native teachers in EFLclassrooms. In the light of these findings, notable implications were suggested for English language teaching.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı yabancı dil olarak İngilizce sınıflarında Türk öğretmenler ve İngilizce anadil konuşucusu öğretmenler tarafından kullanılan söylem belirleyicilerini belirlemek ve bunları çeşitlilik ve frekans açısından karşılaştırmaktır. Söz konusu çalışmanın amaçlarına ulaşabilmek için, iki Türk ve iki İngilizce anadil konuşucusu öğretmenlerin derslerinden toplanan ses kayıtlarından elde edilen çevriyazılara dayanarak iki farklı derlem oluşturulmuştur. Derlem verisinin analizinde metin analizi için dizayn edilen AntConc (2014) adlı özel bir tanıklı dizin programı kullanılmıştır. Derlem yönlendirmeli araştırma sonuçları, sınıf içi söylemlerinde Türk öğretmenlerin 29, İngilizce anadil konuşucusu öğretmenlerin 37 farklı söylem belirleyicisi kullandığını göstermiştir. Ayrıca, Türk öğretmenlerin çoğu söylem belirleyicilerini İngilizce anadil konuşucusu öğretmenlere göre daha az kullandığı görülmüştür. Bu bulguların ışığında, İngiliz dili eğitimi için dikkate değer çıkarımlar önerilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

OKAN, Z., ÖZER, H. Z. (2022). Discourse markers in EFL classrooms: A corpus-driven research. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 1, 50–66. https://ajindex.com/articles/564076

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Aşık, A. (2015). Discourse markers in EFL setting: Perceptions of Turkish EFL teachers. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(7), 941-950.
  2. Aşık, A. & Cephe, P. T. (2013). Discourse markers and spoken English: Nonnative use in the Turkish EFL setting. English Language Teaching, 6(12), 144-155.
  3. Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Version 3. 4. 4), [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University, Available from: http://www.laurenceanthony.net/
  4. Aysu, S. (2017). The use of discourse markers in the writings of Turkish students of English as a foreign language: A corpus based study. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 7(1), 132-138.
  5. Bagaric, V. & Mihaljevic-Djigunovic, J. (2007). Defining communicative competence. Metodika, 8(1), 94-103.
  6. Bernardini, S. (2004). Corpora in the classroom: An overview and some reflections on future developments. In: Sinclair, J. M. (Ed.), How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Reppen, R. (2006). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge. Blakemore, D. (2006). Discourse markers. In: Horn, L. R. & Ward, G. (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell. Bu, J. (2013). A study of the acquisition of discourse markers by Chinese learners of English. International Journal of English Studies, 13(1), 29-50.
  7. Can, C. (2009). İkinci dil edinimi çalışmalarında bilgisayar destekli bir Türk öğrenici İngilizcesi derlemi: Icle „nin bir altderlemi olarak Ticle. Dil, 144, 16-34.
  8. Cheng, W., Warren, M. & Xun-feng, X. (2003). The language learner as language researcher: putting corpus linguistics on the timetable. System, 31, 173-186.
  9. Conrad, S. M. (1999). The importance of corpus-based research for language teachers. System, 27(1), 1-18.
  10. Demirtaş, E. (2004). Yabancı dil öğretmenlerinin kullandıkları söylem belirteçleri ve bağlamlaştırma ipuçlarının işlevleri. Master‟s Thesis, Yıldız Technical University, Istanbul. Ding, R., & Wang, L. (2015). Discourse markers in local and native English teachers‟ talk in Hong Kong EFL classroom interaction: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Language & Linguistics, 2(5), 65-75.
  11. Eslami, Z. R. & Eslami-Rasekh, A. (2007). Discourse markers in academic lectures. Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 22-38.
  12. Flowerdew, J. & Tauroza, S. (1995). The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. SSLA, 17, 435-458.
  13. Fraser, B. (1988). Types of English discourse markers. Acta Lingui