The development of discourse markers in peer interaction

Kyratzis, Amy; Ervin-Tripp, Susan

doi:10.1016/s0378-2166(98)00107-6

Cited by 79 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a wealth of previous research literature dealing with DMs from the perspectives of linguistics, applied linguistics, and EFL studies (Schiffrin, 1987;Kyratzis and Ervin-Tripp, 1999;Fox Tree andSchrock, 1999, 2002;Andersen, 2001;Iglesias Moreno, 2001;Morell, 2004;Hellermann and Vergun, 2007;Buysse, 2010Buysse, , 2012Polat, 2011;Liu, 2013;Babanoğlu, 2014;Fox Tree, 2015). Judging from the literature it is possible to distinguish two broad approaches towards the definition of DMs depending on whether or not DMs are viewed as a phenomenon associated with oral discourse or both oral and written discourse.…”

Section: An Overview Of Previous Research Literature Involving Dmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Judging from the literature it is possible to distinguish two broad approaches towards the definition of DMs depending on whether or not DMs are viewed as a phenomenon associated with oral discourse or both oral and written discourse. The approach to DMs as a feature of oral discourse is foregrounded in Schiffrin (1987), Kyratzis and Ervin-Tripp (1999), Andersen (2001), Iglesias Moreno (2001), Fox Tree andSchrock (2002) and Fuller (2003). Regarded from the vantage point of the role of DMs in oral discourse, DMs are defined as linguistic, paralinguistic, or nonverbal elements that signal relations between units of talk by virtue of their syntactic and semantic properties and by virtue of their sequential relations as initial or terminal brackets demarcating discourse units.…”

Section: An Overview Of Previous Research Literature Involving Dmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The aforementioned views of DMs are echoed by Fuller (2003: 24), who suggests that DMs negotiate the speakers' roles in oral discourse. Similarly, the interactive functions of DMs in oral discourse are emphasised by Kyratzis andErvin-Tripp (1999:1322) and Iglesias Moreno (2001: 29). These scholars suggest that DMs are indicative of the interlocutors' discursive strategies and social behaviour.…”

Section: An Overview Of Previous Research Literature Involving Dmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Impact of Implicit Instruction upon the Use of English Discourse Markers in Written Tasks at the Advanced Beginners’ Level of EFL Proficiency

Капранов

2018

BJELLC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This article aims at examining the impact of implicit instruction upon the use of English discourse markers (further -DMs) in written tasks at the advanced beginners' level of proficiency in English as a Foreign Language (EFL). The theoretical premises of the present research are based upon the role of implicit instruction associated with pragmatic competence, conceptualised as a fundamental dimension of language ability (Laughlin et al., 2015). The research further described in the article involves a quantitative computer-assisted methodo logy of computing the frequency of DMs in the written tasks by a group of EFL learners at the advanced beginners' level of EFL proficiency (further referred to as participants). The frequency of DMs calculated by the computer program WordSmith (Scott, 2012) revealed that implicit instruction in EFL settings had no positive effects on the participants' use of English DMs in the written tasks. These findings are further discussed in the article.

show abstract

Section: An Overview Of Previous Research Literature Involving Dmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: An Overview Of Previous Research Literature Involving Dmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: An Overview Of Previous Research Literature Involving Dmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Impact of Implicit Instruction upon the Use of English Discourse Markers in Written Tasks at the Advanced Beginners’ Level of EFL Proficiency

Капранов

2018

BJELLC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…these differences have been hypothesized to be the result of parents' speaking differently to male and female children (Foulkes, Docherty, and Watt 2005) or children's imitating patterns exhibited by same-gender parents (Ladegaard and Bleses 2003). Girls and boys have also been observed to differ in their use of pragmatic features, such as assertiveness and attention seeking (Austin, Salehi, and Leffler 1987;Cook et al 1985; but see Ladegaard 2004), and girls have been found to use discourse markers more frequently at an early age than boys (escalera 2009; Kyratzis and ervin-tripp 1999).…”

Section: American Speech 882 (2013) 122mentioning

confidence: 99%

THE DEVELOPMENT OF Children’s USE OF DISCOURSELIKEIN PEER INTERACTION

Odato¹

2013

American Speech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

this article examines the use of like as a discourse marker and discourse particle in the spontaneous speech of children age 3-10. Data come from recorded interactions between same-sex peers. Discourse like appeared in the speech of children as young as age 4. Young children used like primarily as a discourse particle preceding determiner phrases. Like was observed in a greater number of syntactic positions as speakers' ages increased and began to appear in different syntactic positions in approximately the order in which they developed in the language historically. Boys age 6 and younger were less likely than girls to use like and used it less frequently and in fewer syntactic positions than girls. the results suggest that boys and girls follow similar developmental trajectories but that girls become more sophisticated users of like at an earlier age than boys.

show abstract

“…Discourse markers have been studied under various names: sentence connectives (Halliday and Hassan, 1976); semantic connectives (Kyratzis and Ervin-Tripp, 1999); pragmatic connectives (Stubbs, 1983); discourse particles (Schorup, 1985); pragmatic markers (Fraser, 1990;Schiffrin, 1987); and discourse markers (Zwicky, 1985). The term discourse markers are more generally and popularly used.…”

Section: A Pendahuluanmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Discourse Functions of and in the Australian Students’ Presentations

Rusdi

2008

Lingua Didaktika

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

And is generally known as a connector which relates parallel information or ideas. In the discourse contexts, and is used differently. This article presents the discourse functions of and as a discourse marker in the presentations made by Australian students in academic settings. It was identified that and has four different discourse functions: i) linking events within a discourse topic; ii) introducing a new topic; iii) signalling a summary; and iv) signalling a speaker's retaking a turn.

show abstract

The development of discourse markers in peer interaction

Cited by 79 publications

References 4 publications

The Impact of Implicit Instruction upon the Use of English Discourse Markers in Written Tasks at the Advanced Beginners’ Level of EFL Proficiency

The Impact of Implicit Instruction upon the Use of English Discourse Markers in Written Tasks at the Advanced Beginners’ Level of EFL Proficiency

THE DEVELOPMENT OF Children’s USE OF DISCOURSELIKEIN PEER INTERACTION

The Discourse Functions of and in the Australian Students’ Presentations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About