Discourse Markers (DMs) in Classroom Oral Presentation of Arab Postgraduate Students

Abstract

Towards auto didacticism in the learning of English language in Malaysian universities, students are required to do oral presentations as an academic task such as presentations of articles reviews, book chapter summaries and mini or final project proposals. To conduct these classroom oral presentations, students usually employ a number of technological aids and resources such as computers, overhead projectors and Microsoft PowerPoint software to create their slides. In fact, conducting coherent oral presentations goes beyond the use of technology to include appropriate use of linguistic devices called discourse markers. However, the absence or misuse of these markers in oral presentation would not only affect the flow of the ideas, coherence of speech and organization of facts but might also alter the intended message of the presenter. The objective of this study was to shed light on the use of these markers by focusing on the types and functions of these markers. For this purpose, a discourse analysis approach was used in which the data were collected in the form of audio-recordings of students’ oral presentations, and then analyzed based on Fraser’s (2009) classification and functions of discourse markers. The findings of this study are useful for instruction of better oral presentation performance of ESL/EFL learners in general and postgraduate students in particular. They also add to the current body of literature in the area of discourse studies.

The Use of English Pragmatic Markers by Learners of English in Interlanguage Communication

“…In contrast, research into other non-native speakers has produced different results. For example, an overuse of the pragmatic marker you know was reported in Alkhawaja et al (2023). These findings indicate that the use of the pragmatic markers by ES learners varies by the learners' backgrounds.…”

“…Some research found that ESL learners used well or you know in low frequencies in communication; for example, Swedish ESL learners (Aijmer, 2011), Chinese ESL learners (Xiao et al, 2021), Macedonian ESL learners (Kusevska, 2019). By contrast, some research found that ESL learners used well or you know in high frequencies; for example, Arabic ESL learners (Alkhawaja et al, 2023). Meanwhile, each study reported different pragmatic functions well and you know used by the ESL learners with different L1 backgrounds.…”

Use of Discourse Markers in ESL Undergraduates’ Expository Essay Writing among Undergraduates in a Nigerian University

“…These findings are supported by Manan and Raslee (2017) who found out that the participants used mostly Elaborative Markers (73%), followed by Temporal Markers (13%), Contrastive Markers (8%) and Implicative Markers (6%). However, Alkhawaja et al, (2022) submit that participants in their study did not use any discourse marker to manage their oral presentation. The absence or misuse of these markers in oral presentation would not only affect the flow of the ideas, coherence of speech and organization of facts but might also alter the intended message of the presenter.…”

“…. Although the appropriate use of DMs foster the quality of a text but do not alter the meaning of the sentence and can be regarded as empty meaning words or phrases (Kamal & Noori, 2015); but the absence or misuse could change the intended message of the writer or speaker (Alkhawaja et al, 2022). In the breakdown of language in use, the use of DMs would not limit the representation of linguist forms irrespective of the subject or use they are meant for in human matters.…”

“…Past studies have shown that L2 learners face problems with DMs such as i) limited number of known acquainted phrases/DMs ii) lack of knowledge of broad pool of DMs iii) underuse of DMs iv) confusion over the appropriate DMs to convey ideas (Karaata, et al, 2012;Ariyanti, 2021;Alkhawaja, et al, 2022); v) neglect of knowledge of DMs in the foreign language teaching curriculum vi) fossilization (Romero-Trillo, 2002); vii) non-equivalent synonymous DMs viii) surface logic ix) misinterpreted relation x) mistranslation problem (Patriana, et al, 2016); xi) lack of knowledge that DMs influence the essays' coherence xii) non-familiarity with the concepts of coherence and cohesion (Surjowati, 2018); xiii) inability to maintain logical sequences in written text (Adeyemi, 2018); xiv) influence of mother tongue.…”