Volume 9, Issue 2 (6-2024)
IJREE 2024, 9(2): 73-88 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Karimi S, Khazaee H. The Comparative Effect of Illustration-Interaction-Induction (III) and Present-Practice-Produce (PPP) Approaches on the Frequency of Use of Discourse Markers Among Iranian EFL Learners in State High Schools. IJREE 2024; 9 (2)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-876-en.html
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-876-en.html
Department of English Language Translation, Lahijan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan, Iran
Abstract: (743 Views)
Discourse markers (DMs) play a significant role in both written and spoken language since they function as coherent devices, offering cues and guidance for the understanding of the reader or listener. The frequency of DMs in a language may have a substantial influence on an individual’s competency and overall English abilities. With an increased frequency of using these markers, individuals enhance their ability to form cohesive and logical sentences, hence improving their proficiency as speakers or writers. The goal of this study is to compare how the illustration-interaction-induction (III) and present-practice-produce (PPP) approaches affect the frequency of DMs in the expository writing of Iranian high school students. The study involved a sample of 30 intermediate Iranian EFL learners enrolled in state high schools in the city of Kelachay, Guilan, Iran. The research was conducted across three settings, namely pre-test, treatment, and post-test. Participants were asked to write an expository paragraph as part of the pre-test. During the treatment phase, after the instruction of the DMs using the PPP approach, the participants were asked to write a second expository paragraph. Following the implementation of the III approach as the second intervention phase in the study, the subsequent post-test was conducted, wherein participants were asked to compose one additional paragraph. The three sets of paragraphs were compiled into three learner corpora and analyzed to determine the frequency of DMs. The log-likelihood and effect size calculators demonstrated the superiority of the III approach in terms of the frequency of DMs used in the expository paragraphs of Iranian EFL learners in state high schools. The findings provided robust support for the efficacy of the III approach in the context of teaching DMs.
Keywords: discourse markers (DMs), illustration-interaction-induction (III), log-likelihood test, monoconc pro-semester, present-practice-produce (PPP)
References
1. Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational routines. Convention and creativity. Routledge.
2. Aijmer, K. (2002). Modality in advanced Swedish learners' written interlanguage. In S. Granger, J. Hung, & S. Petch- [DOI:10.1075/lllt.6.07aij]
3. Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language. acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 55-76). John Benjamins.
4. Akande, A. T. (2009). Discourse markers in the spontaneous speech of Nigerian university graduates. Lagos Papers in
5. English Studies, 4, 28-37.
6. Alsaawi, A. (2022). Use of discourse markers among senior university students. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), [DOI:10.31235/osf.io/j8pre]
7. 13(1), 161-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4085183 [DOI:10.2139/ssrn.4085183]
8. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Harvard University Press.
9. Anderson, J. R. (1987). Skill acquisition: Compilation of weak-method problem solutions. Psychological Review, [DOI:10.1037//0033-295X.94.2.192]
10. 94(2), 192-210.
11. Anderson, J. R. (2005). Cognitive psychology and its implications. Worth Publishers.
12. Anderson, E. S., Brizuela, M., Dupuy, B., & Gonnerman, L. (1999). Cross-linguistic evidence for the early acquisition
13. of discourse markers as register variables. Journal of Pragmatics 31(10), 1339-1351. [DOI:10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00108-8]
14. Aysu, S. (2023). Analysis of discourse markers in paragraph writings of preparatory elective class students in a state [DOI:10.19160/e-ijer.1190477]
15. University. E-International Journal of Educational Research, 14(1), 187-200. http://www.e-ijer.com/en/download/article-file/2713944
16. Barlow, M. (2017). MonoConc Pro-Semester (Version 2.2.) [Computer software]. Althestan. Available from
17. http://www.michaelbarlow.com
18. Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Blackwell.
19. Blakemore, D. (1988). The organization of discourse. In F. Newmeyer (Ed.), Language: The socio-cultural context [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511620577.014]
20. (pp. 229-250). Cambridge University Press.
21. Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Walter de Gruyter. [DOI:10.1515/9783110907582]
22. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511813085]
23. Press.
24. Chapetón Castro, C. M. (2009). The use and functions of discourse markers in EFL classroom interaction. Profile
25. Issues in Teachers Professional Development, 11, 57-78.
26. http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?pid=S1657-07902009000100005&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
27. Chaudron, C., & Richards J. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied [DOI:10.1093/applin/7.2.113]
28. Linguistics, 7(2), 113-127. [DOI:10.1093/applin/7.2.113]
29. Crible, L. (2020). Weak and strong discourse markers in speech, chat, and writing: Do signals compensate for [DOI:10.1080/0163853X.2020.1786778]
30. ambiguity in explicit relations? Discourse Processes, 57(9), 793-807. [DOI:10.1080/0163853X.2020.1786778]
31. Crible, L., Abuczki, Á., Burkšaitienė, N., Furkó, P., Nedoluzhko, A., Rackevičienė, S., & Zikánová, Š. (2019).
32. Functions and translations of discourse markers in TED Talks: A parallel corpus study of underspecification in five languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 142, 139-155. [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.012]
33. Fahim, M., Aghabagheri, M., & Rezai, M. J. (2012). Raising pragmatic awareness: Effect of contrastive discourse
34. markers on iBT speaking module. Teaching English Language, 6(1), 39-70.
35. Flowerdew, J. & Tauroza, D. (1995). The effects of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. [DOI:10.1017/S0272263100014406]
36. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(4), 435-458. [DOI:10.1017/S0272263100014406]
37. Foolen, A. (1996). Pragmatic particles. In J. Verschueren, JO, Östman, J, Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (Eds), [DOI:10.1075/hop.2.pra3]
38. Handbook of Pragmatics. John Benjamins.
39. Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3), 383-398. [DOI:10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V]
41. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952. [DOI:10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5]
43. Fujita, Y. (2001). Functions of discourse markers" ano and sono" in written dialogue. https://archive.org/details/ERIC_ED454737
44. Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. [DOI:10.1093/applin/amm030]
45. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410-439. [DOI:10.1093/applin/amm030]
46. Grzech, K. (2021). Using discourse markers to negotiate epistemic stance: A view from situated language use. Journal [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2021.02.003]
47. of Pragmatics, 177, 208-223. [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2021.02.003]
48. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds), Syntax and semantics (pp. 41-58). [DOI:10.1163/9789004368811_003]
49. Academic Press.
50. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford University Press.
51. Heeman, P., & Allen, J. (2000). Speech repairs, intonational phrases and discourse markers: Modeling speakers'
52. utterances in spoken dialogue. Computational Linguistics, 25(4), 80-122.
53. Howard, M. (2010). A discourse approach to teaching modal verbs of deduction. Folio, 14(2),
54. Huang, L. F., Lin, Y. L., & Gráf, T. (2023). Development of the use of discourse markers across different fluency levels
55. of CEFR: A learner corpus analysis. Pragmatics, 33(1), 49-77. [DOI:10.1075/prag.21016.hua]
56. Jones, C., & Carter, R. (2014). Teaching spoken discourse markers explicitly: A comparison of III and PPP. [DOI:10.6018/ijes/14/1/161001]
57. International Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 37-54. file:///C:/Users/SMA/Downloads/editum,+A3-Jones&Carter.pdf
58. Jung, J. (2008). Discourse markers in cross-cultural conversation. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics,
59. 8(2), 1-4. [DOI:10.7916/salt.v8i2.1481]
60. Khandaghi Khameneh, A., & Fakhraee Faruji, L. (2020). The Effect of teaching Discourse Markers (DMs) on speaking
61. achievement among Iranian intermediate EFL learners. International Journal of Research in English Education, 5(4), 1-13. http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-398-en.html
62. Khazaee, H., & Marzban, A. (2009, October 1). Explicit teaching of discourse markers in EFL listening comprehension
63. [Conference presentation]. Regional Conference on English Literature, TEFL, and Translation Studies, Ghamemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University.
64. Khazaee, H., & Pourhosein Gilakjani, A. (2022). Assessing the level of communicativeness of activities in Iran's
65. FRDE-based state high school English textbooks (Prospect and Vision Series). The Journal of Asia TEFL, 19(3), 1098-1108. doi:10.18823/asiatefl.2022.19.3.25.1098 [DOI:10.18823/asiatefl.2022.19.3.25.1098]
66. Kroon, C. (1995). Discourse particles in Latin. A study of nam, enim, autem, vero and at. J. C. Gieben, Publisher. [DOI:10.1163/9789004408999]
67. Lagalo, A. M. S. (2013). The application of presentation, practice, and production (PPP) method to increase students'
68. speaking ability. Skripsi, 1, (321409176).
69. Lenk, U. (1998). Marking discourse coherence: Functions of discourse markers in spoken English. Gunter Narr Verlag.
70. Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511813313]
71. Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, [DOI:10.1075/sibil.2.07lon]
72. & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). John Benjamins.
73. Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and taskbased language teaching. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
74. Louwerse, M. M., & Mitchell, H. H. (2003). Toward a taxonomy of a set of discourse markers in dialog: A theoretical [DOI:10.1207/S15326950DP3503_1]
75. and computational linguistic account. Discourse Processes, 35(3), 199-239. [DOI:10.1207/S15326950DP3503_1]
76. Macaulay, R. (2002). You know, it depends. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 749-767. [DOI:10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00005-4]
78. McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1995). Spoken grammar: What is it and how can we teach it? ELT Journal, 49(3), 207- [DOI:10.1093/elt/49.3.207]
80. Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse (Vol. 138). John Benjamins [DOI:10.1075/pbns.138]
81. Publishing.
82. Rayson, P. (2019). Log-likelihood and effect size calculator [Computer program]. https://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/llwizard.html
83. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511611841]
84. Schourup, L. (1985). Common discourse particles in English conversation: like, well, y'know. Garland.
85. Scrivener, J. (1994). ARC: A descriptive model for classroom work on language. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.),
86. Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 79-92). Macmillan Heinemann.
87. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Harvard University Press.
88. Tadayyon, M., & Vasheghani Farahani, M. (2017). Exploring discourse markers used in academic papers: A
89. comparative corpus-based inquiry of Iranian and English native writers. Iranian EFL Journal, 13(2), 130-150.
90. Taheri Ghaleno, E., & Dabirmoghaddam, M. (2019). Gender differences in using discourse markers in narrative
91. discourse: Case study on Persian-speaking 11-year-old Tehrani children. Journal of Linguistics & Khorasan Dialects, 11(1), 141-172.
92. Tham, D. (2013). Expository eureka: Model expository essays for today's secondary school students. Marshall
93. Cavendish International Asia Pte Ltd.
94. Vasilescu, I., Rosset, S., & Decker, M. (1998). On the role of discourse markers in interactive spoken question
95. answering systems. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 485-496. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2010/pdf/481_Paper.pdf
96. Willis, J. (1993). Preaching what we practice-Training what we teach: Task-based language teaching as an alternative
97. to PPP. The Teacher Trainer, 8(1), 17-20.
98. Woodward, T. (1993). Changing the basis of pre-service TEFL training in the U.K. IATEFL TT SIG Newsletter, 13, 3-
99. Yoon, S. Y., & Na-Young, K. (2022). The use of metadiscourse markers in mobile-assisted flipped learning in L2 [DOI:10.18823/asiatefl.2022.19.1.11.180]
100. writing. Journal of Asia TEFL, 19(1), 180-196. doi:10.18823/asiatefl.2022.19.1.11.180 [DOI:10.18823/asiatefl.2022.19.1.11.180]
101. Yunis, M. M., & Haris, S. N. F. (2014). The use of discourse markers among form four SLL students in essay [DOI:10.5539/ies.v7n2p54]
102. writing. International Education Studies, 7(2), 54-63. doi:10.5539/ies.v7n2p54 [DOI:10.5539/ies.v7n2p54]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
