Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-l4t7p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T06:13:42.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Discourse Markers on Second Language Lecture Comprehension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

John Flowerdew  and
Steve Tauroza
John Flowerdew
Affiliation:
City University of Hong Kong
Steve Tauroza
Affiliation:
City University of Hong Kong
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper measures the effect of the presence or absence of discourse markers such as so, right, well, OK, and now on second language lecture comprehension. A control group viewed a video recording of an extract of a naturally occurring lecture, whereas an experimental group viewed the same extract, but with discourse markers deleted. The results clearly indicate that subjects comprehended the lecture better when discourse markers were included than when they were deleted. This finding contrasts with earlier research that suggested discourse markers play no significant role in comprehension. This contrast is interpreted as being due to differences in experimental procedures.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 1995 , pp. 435 - 458
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Adkins, A., & McKean, I. (1983). Text to note. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Beglar, D., & Murray, N. (1993). Contemporary topics: Advanced listening comprehension. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blau, E. K. (1990). The effect of syntax, speed, and pauses on listening comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 746–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blau, E. K. (1991, 11). More on comprehensible input: The effect of pauses and hesitation markers on listening comprehension. Paper presented at Puerto Rico TESOL, San Juan.Google Scholar
Boyle, J. (1984). Factors affecting listening comprehension. ELT Journal, 38, 34–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brazil, D. (1985). The communicative value of intonation. Birmingham, UK: English Language Research/Bleak House.Google Scholar
Brown, G. (1990). Listening to spoken English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983a). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983b). Teaching the spoken language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1985). Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing. In Olson, D. R., Torrance, N., & Hildyard, A. (Eds.), Literature, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp. 105–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C., & Richards, J. C. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7, 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M. (1990). Speech rate is no simple matter. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudley-Evans, A., & Johns, T. (1981). A team-teaching approach to lecture comprehension for overseas students. In The teaching of listening comprehension (pp. 30–46). London: The British Council.Google Scholar
Dunkel, P. A., & Davis, J. M. (1994). The effects of rhetorical signaling cues on the recall of English lecture information by ESL and ENL listeners. In Flowerdew, J. (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 55–74). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. (1991). Biology Lectures Corpus [Electronic data tape]. Sultanate of Oman: Language Centre, Sultan Qaboos University.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. (1994a). Academic listening: Research perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. (1994b). Specific language for specific purposes: Concordancing for the ESP syllabus. In Khoo, R. (Ed.), LSP—Problems and prospects (pp. 97–113). Singapore: RELC.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (1992). Student perceptions, problems and strategies in second language lecture comprehension. RELC Journal, 23, 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 383–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, R. (1990). Speech rate and NNS comprehension: A preliminary study in time-benefit analysis. Language Learning, 40, 311–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and written language. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Heilenman, L. K. (1990). Self-assessment of second language ability: The role of response effects. Language Testing, 7, 174–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, G., Chuawanlee, W., Hoga, B. K., Sakumoto, D., Saka, S., & Meehan, K. (1988, 03). The effect of pausing on listening comprehension. Paper presented at the 8th Annual Second Language Research Forum, Honolulu, HA.Google Scholar
James, G., Whitley, C. G., & Bode, S. (1990). English on campus: A listening sampler. Belmont, CA: Wads-worth.Google Scholar
James, K.Jordan, R. R., & Mathews, A. J. (1979). Listening comprehension and note-taking course. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Kelch, K. (1985). Modified input as an aid to comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellerman, S. (1990). Lip service: The contribution of the visual modality to speech perception and its relevance to the teaching and testing of foreign language listening comprehension. Applied Linguistics, 11, 272–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellerman, S. (1992). “I see what you mean”: The role of kinesic behaviour in listening and implications for foreign and second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 13, 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, T. (1983). Study listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mason, A. (1983). Understanding academic lectures. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Montgomery, M. (1977). Some aspects of discourse structure and cohesion in selected science lectures. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. In Givon, T. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 12. Discourse and syntax (pp. 51–80). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Roguski, C., & Palmberg, E. (1990). Academic mini-lectures: A text for listening and note-taking practice. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rost, M. (1990). Listening in language learning. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ruetten, M. (1986). Comprehending academic lectures. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, E. W., Duchan, J. F., & Scott, P. J. (1991). The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults' interpretations of simple stories. Discourse Processes, 14, 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. (1983). Planes of discourse. In Rizvi, S. N. A. (Ed.), The twofold voice: Essays in honour of Ramesh Mohan (pp. 70–89). Salzburg: University of Salzburg.Google Scholar
Speakes, C., Parker, B., Harris, C., & Kuhl, P. (1972). The intelligibility of connected discourse. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 15, 590–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenström, A. (1990). Lexical items peculiar to spoken discourse. In Svartik, J. (Ed.), The London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English (pp. 137–175). Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Tauroza, S. (1994). The Hong Kong Corpus of Computer Science and Information Systems Lectures. In Khoo, R. (Ed.), The practice of LSP: Perspectives, programmes and projects (pp. 68–84). Singapore: RELC.Google Scholar
Traynor, R. (1985). The TOEFL: An appraisal. ELT Journal, 39, 43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. (1992). Discourse structure and the perception of incoherence in International Teaching Assistants' spoken discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 713–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., & Bro, J. (1992). Discourse structure in nonnative English discourse: The effect of ordering and interpretive cues on perceptions of comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderplank, R. (1988). Implications of differences in native and non-native speaker approaches to listening. British Journal of Language Teaching, 26, 32–41.Google Scholar
Wallace, M. (1984). Study skills in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (1992). Planning, discourse marking, and the comprehensibility of International Teaching Assistants. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 693–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, L., & Fitzgerald, B. (1982). Listening and learning lectures. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar