英语专业教师话语标记语使用现状调查研究

-回复 -浏览
楼主 2020-12-10 18:36:17
举报 只看此人 收藏本贴 楼主
英文SCI润色
Chapter One   Introduction 
 
1.1 Background of the study
There are words and phrases in English,as well as in most languages,that indicate the relationship between an utterance  and  the  prior  discourse  (Levinson, 1983). These words and  phrases  are  referred  to  as  discourse  markers  (henceforth  DMs),  including well,OK/okay,you  know,  etc.Possessing  grammatical  functions,  DMs  also  work  as effective  interactional  features,especially  in  spoken  conversation  (Schiffrin,  1987; Maschler,  1998;  Fraser,  1999).  Thus,  DMs  are  considered  to  be  of  much  importance  in understanding discourse. The researches concerning discourse markers started in the 1970s. The topic has been studied  by  many  scholars  at  different  levels.  The  first  and  the  most  detailed  study  about DMs  was  conducted  in  1980s  by  Schiffrin.She(1987:31)defines  DMs  as  ‘sequentially dependent  elements  which  bracket  units  of  talk’.  Furtherinfluential studies  are  conducted by  Redeker  (1991),  Fraser  (1990,  1996,  1999),  and  Blakemore  (1992)  from  different perspectives. Researches on DMs can also be found at home.He and Ran (1999) analyses the  cognitiveexplanationand  pragmatic  constraint  of  discourse  connectors  on  utterance generation  andunderstanding,  whose  contributions  to  DMs  range  from  the  theoretical aspects  to  case  study.Other  studies  conducted  by  Chinese  scholars,  such  as  Chen  (2002), He & Mo (2002),Ran (2002), Feng (2008) and so on, provide valuable insights into DMs as well.  
...........
 
1.2 Significance of the study 
Study  on  the  teachers’use  of  discourse  markers  in  college  English-major  classroom has both academic significance and practical significance.Firstly,  the  study  on  teachers’  use  of  discourse  markers  in  college  English-major classroom is an empirical case for the research of discourse markers in pedagogic settings, thus it will offer pertinent data for the development and advancement of this filed. Secondly,  the  study  on  teachers’  use  of  discourse  markers  in  college  English-major classroom  will  contribute  to  the  studies  and  researches  of  second  language acquisition.Teacher  talk  is  significantly  related  to  students’language  input,  thus  the investigation of discourse markers in pedagogic setting will provide a referential material for the study of second language acquisition. First  of  all,  the  study  is  conducted  to  investigate  English-major  teachers’  current usage  of  discourse  markers  in  Xinjiang  Normal  University.  Thus,  the  present  study attempts to help English-major teachers enhance the awareness of using correct discourse markers in the class. Secondly, Teacher talk is considered as one of the most important recourse of English input  for  English-major  students.  Teachers  will  adjust  their  instructional  languagefor  the benefit of students and also the lesson plans. Thus, the correct use of discourse markers by teachers will be gradually acquired by students, and in this way, students’ learning would be improved because of a better understanding of their teachers. In addition, the study tries to provide certain pedagogical implications for the use of discourse markers in classroom  discourse  in  order  to  draw  attention  to  the  importance  of the  knowledge  of  discourse  markers  in  professional  foreign  language  teaching  and learning. 
.........
 
Chapter Two   Literature Review 
 
This chapter is mainly about the conceptual framework and literature review related to the present study. Concepts of discourse markers and teacher talk are introduced in the first  part.  Theoretical  base  of  this  study  is  talked  about  in  the  following  section.  Then, previous studies on discourse markers in western countries and also in China are presented. The Last part is to explain the limitation of previous studies in order to find research gap.  
 
2.1 Conceptual framework 
The  diversity  of  terminologies  indicates  the  different  roles  of  DMs,  and  there  are sentence  connectives  (Halliday  &  Hasan,  1976),  clue  words  (Reichman,  1978),  semantic connectives (van Dijk, 1979), pragmatic particles (?stman, 1982), pragmatic connectives (van  Dijk,  1979;  Stubbs,  1983),  discourse  particles  (Schourup,  1985),  pragmatic  devices (Vande  Kopple,  1985),  semantic  conjuncts  (Quirk  et  al.,  1985),  pragmatic  formatives (Fraser,  1987),  utterance  particles  (Luke,  1987),  pragmatic  markers  (Schiffrin,  1987), discourse operators (Redeker, 1991), cue phrases (Hovy, 1994; Knott & Dale, 1994), cue words  (Rouchota,  1996),  discourse  markers  (Hansen,  1998;  Jucker  &  Ziv,  1998; Blakemore, 2002), etc. ?stman  (1982:149)  defines  ‘pragmatic  particles’  as  being  ‘(a)  short,  and  (b) prosodically  subordinated  to  another  word.  It  would  (c)  resist  clear  lexical  specification and  be  propositionally  empty.  Furthermore,  it  would  (d)  tend  to  occur  in  some  sense  cut off from, or on a higher level than the rest of the utterance, at the same time as it tends to modify the utterance as a whole’. Levinson (1983) thinks ofdiscourse markers, existing in most languages, as signals to represent  the  connection  between  an  utterance  and  its  preceding  discourse,  such  as utterance-initial  usages  of  but,  therefore,  inconclusion,  to  the  contrary,  still,  however, anyway, well, and so on. 
........
 
2.2 Theoretical base 
Interaction Hypothesis was proposed by Long in early 1980s based on the Krashen’s Input Hypothesis. Just like Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, the interaction hypothesis also takes account of the  importance  of  comprehensible  input,  attempting  to  provide  explanation  about  how acquisition occurs and to find out which kinds of interaction will best promote acquisition. According  to  Long  (1983),  there  are  three  ways  to  make  input  comprehensible:(a)  by means  of  input  simplification  (input  features),  (b)  through  the  use  of  linguistic  and extra-linguistic  context,  and  (c)  through  modification  of  the  interactional  structure  of conversation  (interactional  features,  which  consist  of  clarification  requests,  confirmation checks, comprehension checks, etc.). When  misunderstanding  takes  place  in  the  interaction,  students  have  to  try  modify their  input  by  a  process  known  as  negotiation  of  meaning  (Ellis,  1999).  Long  (1983) distinguished  two  kinds  of  negotiation:  the  negotiation  aimed  at  avoiding  conversational trouble  and  the  one  aimed  at  repairing  discourse  when  trouble  occurs.  Interactional modifications belonging to the formerindicatelong-term planning for conversation, which is  called  strategies,  while  interactional  modifications  deriving  from  the  second  one  are supposed to be spontaneous and mainly affect how topics are talked about, which is called tactics. 
......
 
Chapter Three   Research Methods ....... 20 
3.1 Research aims ...... 20 
3.2 Research questions ...... 20
3.3 Research subjects ........ 21 
3.4 Research instruments ......... 22 
3.5 Data collection ..... 24 
3.6 Data analysis procedures .... 24 
Chapter Four   Results and Discussion .......... 26 
4.1 General descriptions of the DMs used by English-major teachers ......... 26 
4.2 Frequently used DMs in English-major teachers’ discourses ......... 27 
4.3 DMs’ usage of English-major teachers compared with MICASE .......... 28 
4.4 Functions of OK/okay employed by English-major teachers ........... 36 
Chapter Five   Conclusion ....... 50
5.1 Main findings ....... 50 
5.2 Implications ......... 53 
5.3 Limitations ........... 54
 
Chapter Four Results and Discussion 
 
In  this  chapter,  the  data  collected  for  the  thesis  are  discussed.  The  researchis  carried out by transcripts of audio recordings from English-major teachers (NNS) and classroom observations, aiming to provide holistic answers of the research questions. Quantitative  analysis  will  be  presented  to  find  out  what  DMs  are  frequently  used  by English-major  teachers  in  terms  of  distribution  and  percentage,  and  then  a  comparison between  English-major  teachers’  data  and  native-speakers’  data  will  be  made  to  address certain  problems  existing  in  English-major  teachers’  discourses.  Then  a  detailed  analysis will be conducted to give further explanations of how teachers use the DM OK/Okay.  
 
4.1 General descriptions of the DMs usedby English-majorteachers 
General  information  of  English-major  teachers’  corpus  in  the  present  study  is  stated in table 4-1. Word types and word tokens are included in the table.  Then, DMs appearing in NNS transcripts are locatedand then counted by Ant Concin terms of their types and frequencies, and then checked carefully at least three times by the author to control the accuracy of the data, as shown in table 4-2.   There are 35 types of words or phrasescounted in this study as frequently used DMs by  English-major  teachers.  The  occurrences  of  DMs  appeared  in  English-major  teachers’ discourses is 5,467 times. 
.............
 
Conclusion
 
The  present  study  focuses  on  the  analysis  of  discourse  markers  used  by  four English-major  teachers  in  Xinjiang  Normal  University.  DMs  appearing  in  pedagogic settings can be perceived as important strategies for the teacher to deliver lectures and also as signals for students to locate information in teacher talk in order to assist learning and understanding.  However,  there  are  few  researches  dedicate  to  find  out  the  DMs  used  by English-major  teachers  who  themselves  are  EFL  language  users  and  whose  English proficiency is regarded significant to specialised English learners in Chinese context. Thus the study provides a survey on the current situation of DMs used by non-native-speaking English-major teachers and then focus on a special DM OK/okay. In order to locate the DMs that are frequently adopted by English-major teachers, the study  used  Ant Conc  to  analyse  the  transcripts.  And  the  datafrom  non-native-speaking teachers’  corpusreveal  that  OK/okay(1,025  times),  and  (924  times),  so(757  times),  right (469  times),  yeah  (429  times),  yes  (349  times),  or  (262  times),  but  (244  times),  alright (188  times),  now  (140  times),  because/cuz  (112  times),  are  frequently  used  in English-major teachers’ classrooms. Thereinto, OK/okay (1,025 times, 2.33 per cent), and (924 times, 2.10 per cent), so (757 times, 1.72 per cent) being the top three DMs. Whereas kindof  (4  times),  like  (4  times),  whatabout  (4  tims),  second/secondly(3  times),  exactly  (1 time), and yet (1 time) are the least frequently used DMs by English-major teachers. 
.........
Reference documents (omitted) 
我要推荐
转发到