scholarly journals The Frequently Used Discourse Markers by Saudi EFL Learners

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arab World English Journal ◽  
Maryam Alsharif

The paper examines the use of discourse markers by Saudi English learners who struggle to master them when they write English essays. The hypothesis is, and based on previous studies of discourse markers by English learners, Saudi English learners overuse them. English essays are collected as a corpus for analysis and a concordance program is used to shed light on how frequently key words in contexts are used by learners. The study compares between Saudi learners and native speakers in their use of discourse markers and to investigate similarities and differences between the two groups. The results support previous studies as the analysis proves that Saudi learners overuse discourse markers. They have been used unnecessarily and redundantly. The preference of types of discourse markers has been investigated to show that learners use listing and resultive discourse markers mainly. The frequency count of the discourse markers in the collected corpus indicates their preference to vary specific types to avoid repetition and not to vary the semantic functions of discourse markers..

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
LING FENG

This paper investigates the use of diminishers in Chinese EFL learners' written English (CLEC) and compares it with that in an English native speakers' written corpus (LOCNESS) through both quantitative and qualitative analysis. The corpus-based study reveals: (a) that there are similarities and differences in the frequency and pattern of usage of diminishers between Chinese EFL learners and English native speakers; (b) that the misuse, the overuse of some and underuse of other diminishers or patterns of diminishers indicate that Chinese learners have a different collocational range which could be affected by factors like mother tongue interference and the understanding of sematic prosody. Pedagogical implications of the study are also discussed to shed light on teaching English vocabulary and writing.LING FENG


2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 189
Author(s):  
Saudin Saudin ◽  
Iis Sulyaningsih ◽  
Lina Meilinda

The important role of collocation in learners’ language proficiency has been acknowledged widely. In Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), collocation is known as one prominent member of the super-ordinate lexical cohesion, which contributes significantly to the textual coherence, together with grammatical cohesion and structural cohesion (Halliday & Hasan, 1985). Collocation is also viewed as the hallmark of truly advanced English learners since the higher the learners’ proficiency is, the more they tend to use collocation (Bazzaz & Samad, 2011; Hsu, 2007; Zhang, 1993). Further, knowledge of collocation is regarded as part of the native speakers’ communicative competence (Bazzaz & Samad, 2011); and lack of the knowledge is the most important sign of foreignness among foreign language learners (McArthur, 1992; McCarthy, 1990). Taking the importance of collocation into account, this study is aimed to shed light on Indonesian EFL learners’ levels of collocational competence. In the study, the collocational competence is restricted to v+n and adj+n of collocation but broken down into productive and receptive competence, about which little work has been done (Henriksen, 2013). For this purpose, 49 second-year students of an English department in a state polytechnic were chosen as the subjects. Two sets of tests (filling in the blanks and multiple-choice) were administered to obtain the data of the subjects’ levels of productive and receptive competence and to gain information of which type was more problematic for the learners. The test instruments were designed by referring to Brashi’s (2006) test model, and Koya’s (2003). In the analysis of the data, interpretive-qualitative method was used primarily to obtain broad explanatory information. The data analysis showed that the scores of productive competence were lower than those of receptive competence in both v+n and adj+n collocation. The analysis also revealed that the scores of productive and receptive competence in v+n collocation were higher than those of productive and receptive competence in adj+n collocation. The finding comes as a surprise since it turns out adj+n collocation is more problematic than v+n collocation both productively and receptively. Much research, by contrast, has reported that mistakes in v+n collocation are typical (Al-Zahrani, 1998; Nesselhauf, 2003; Liu, 1999; Sun, 2004). A conclusion has even been drawn that “v+n collocation is more difficult than adj+n collocation” (Kuo, 2009, p. 148). Though more studies are needed to support its finding, this research suggests the type of collocation deserve to get more attention from researchers.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 569
Author(s):  
Abeer Q. Taweel

This study aims to shed light on the discourse markers used in the academic writing of Arab students of English as a second language within the framework of corpus linguistics. By so doing, an attempt will be made to examine the use of the discourse marker expressing attitude, sequence, cause and result, addition, and comparing and contrasting. For comparison purposes, similar-sized authentic corpus will be used to examine the learners’ use, overuse, and underuse of the target markers. Moreover, the study will provide a detailed account of the possible reasons contributing to the disparity between the two corpora in terms of the use of the target markers. Results show that learners use more discourse markers than native speakers. While this is a general tendency, it still remains feasible to attribute the disparity between the two corpora to learners L1 influence where some of the overused markers spring out naturally and smoothly as they have rhetorical functions in learners’ native tongue.


2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. 1357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Syed Md Golam Faruk ◽  
Pulak Barua

The paper investigates the answer scripts of an “English Writing” exam of 72 students in a Bangladeshi university in order to find out the nature and extent of the use of connectors in their second semester-final exam. It also tries to find out similarities and differences between the connector use of Bangladeshi non-native speakers (BNNS) and that of French, Japanese, Swedish, and Chinese non-native speakers on the one hand and between the connector use of BNNS and that of the native speakers of English (only British and American) on the other. To this end, the secondary data for other non-native and native speakers (NS) of almost the same age and level were collected from some published articles. The paper finds that in comparison to NS, BNNS, like most other non-native speakers, underuse most of the connectors.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 116
Author(s):  
Boonjeera Chiravate

Although a number of interlanguage studies on apologies have been conducted, there has been no study of apologies among Thai EFL learners that differentiates between learners with high and low levels of exposure to the target language. This study, differentiating between learners with high and low levels of exposure to the target language, addresses two research questions: (i) What are the similarities and differences between perception of offense context of Thai EFL learners and native speakers of English? (ii) What are the similarities and differences between apology strategies used by Thai EFL learners and native speakers of English? Data for the analysis came from a questionnaire consisting of 12 scenarios eliciting different offense contexts. The participants were divided into four groups: native speakers of English (NEs), native speakers of Thai (NTs), Thai EFL learners with high exposure to the target language (TEHs) and Thai EFL learners with low exposure to the target language (TELs). The results revealed that due to the influence of cultural background, the learners’ perception of offense context was dissimilar to the NEs in certain respects. However, the investigation of apology strategies showed that compared to the TELs, the TEHs’ apology strategies tended to be less influenced by their cultural background and more similar to the NEs’. Providing support for levels of exposure to the target language, as individual differences vary in L2 pragmatic development, the study sheds light on pedagogical intervention that may enhance learners’ pragmatic competence.


2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazunari Shimada

In this study, the use of discourse markers (DMs) in the speech of Japanese learners of English was investigated. To explore the features of their DM use, corpora of nonnative and native English speakers’ speech were analysed using the methodology called Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis. A frequency analysis of DMs revealed significant differences between Japanese learners’ and native speakers’ speech, supporting earlier findings. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the learner corpus data suggest that Japanese learners may use the marker so more frequently than other nonnative English learners, while also using certain interpersonal or cognitive function markers such as you know, I mean, and just less frequently. The findings suggest the need for language instructors and materials writers to understand the characteristics of Japanese learners’ interlanguage and to provide them with appropriately designed DM input. 本研究は、日本人英語学習者の話し言葉における談話標識(discourse markers: DMs)の使用を調べたものである。日本人英語学習者のDMs使用の特徴を探るために、対照中間言語分析の手法に基づき、非英語母語話者と英語母語話者の話し言葉コーパスを分析した。まず、日本人英語学習者と英語母語話者の話し言葉におけるDMsの使用頻度を分析したところ、先行研究と同じく、大きな差が見られた。次に、非英語母語話者の話し言葉を量的・質的の両面で分析した結果、日本人英語学習者が、他の非英語母語話者に比べてsoを多く使用し、you know, I mean, justなどの対人関係的、認知的機能をもつDMsをあまり使用しないことが明らかになった。その結果は、教師や教材作成者が日本人英語学習者の中間言語の特徴を理解し、学習者に対して慎重にDMsをインプットしていく必要性があることを示唆している。


2011 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin Aijmer

Pragmatic markers are an important part of the grammar of conversation and not simply markers of disfluency. They have a number of functions that help the speaker to organise the conversation and to express feelings and attitudes. Advanced EFL learners use frequent pragmatic markers such as well. However their use of well diverges from the native speaker norm. The present study uses data from the Swedish component of the LINDSEI corpus and its native speaker counterpart (LOCNEC) to examine similarities and differences between native and non-native speakers. The overall picture is that Swedish learners overuse well, although there are considerable individual differences. Thus learners use well above all as a fluency device to cope with speech management problems but underuse it for attitudinal purposes. Pragmatic markers cannot be taught in the same way as other lexical items but it is important to discuss how and where they are used.


2004 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen ◽  
Karin Aijmer

The study of of course presented in this article has an applied, a descriptive and a theoretical aim. Since of course proves to be very frequent in English, learners will need to know what meanings the item has and in what pragmatic contexts it is used. It has indeed been shown that some learners tend to use of course in contexts where it is felt by native speakers to be inappropriate. In order to explain such inappropriate uses we need detailed descriptions of the semantics and pragmatics of of course. From a theoretical point of view such multifunctional items raise the question of whether semantic polysemy or pragmatic polysemy is the best explanatory account. It is argued in this paper that empirical cross-linguistic work can contribute to providing answers to all three research questions. First, the study of correspondences and differences between languages with regard to the meanings and uses of pragmatic markers is a necessary step in the explanation of learner problems. Second, the bidirectional approach to equivalents, which involves going back and forth from sources to translations, enables us to show to what extent the equivalents have partially overlapping pragmatic functions. An in-depth comparison of the semantic fields in which the translation equivalents operate is the ultimate goal. Third, the translation method helps to see to what extent a core meaning account is justified. In this paper three languages are brought into the picture, viz. English, Swedish and Dutch. The cross-linguistic data have been gathered from three translation corpora, i.e. the English-Swedish Parallel Corpus, the Oslo Multilingual Corpus and the Namur Triptic Corpus.


1991 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 926-932 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seshu Madhava Rao Adluri ◽  
Murty K. S. Madugula

The concept of schifflerization of 90° equal-leg angle is presented and its application in triangular-base latticed steel towers is explained. The similarities and differences between schifflerized angles and regular 90° angles are discussed. The current design practice for schifflerized angles is reviewed and its limitation is highlighted. A design method which includes the effect of the torsional-flexural buckling mode of failure is proposed. For ready use of designers, the factored axial compressive resistances of schifflerized angles are tabulated for both the present and proposed design methods. Key words: buckling, compressive resistance, design criteria, schifflerized angles, stability, standards, steel, struts, towers, guyed towers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document