International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 2834-7919   |  e-ISSN: 1554-5210
International Journal of Progressive Education
International Association of Educators

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2014, Vol. 10(2) 73-88

The Impact of Discourse Signaling Devices on the Listening Comprehension of L2 Learners

Fahimeh Tajabadi, & Mahboubeh Taghizadeh

pp. 73 - 88   |  Manu. Number: ijpe.2014.052

Published online: June 15, 2014  |   Number of Views: 124  |  Number of Download: 263

Save PDF

Abstract

The purpose of this study was two-fold: first, it aimed at examining the impact of expository text  topics on the listening comprehension of L2 learners; second, it aimed to investigate the impact of macro, micro, and macro-micro discourse markers on the listening comprehension of expository texts by L2 learners. The participants (N =105) were male and female adult L2 learners at upper- intermediate level selected from a number of English language institutes in Iran. The materials consisted of three expository texts and three versions (i.e., micro, macro, and macro-micro) for each text, which were developed by the researchers based on Chaudron and Richard’s (1986) model of discourse markers. A listening proficiency test and three sets of listening comprehension tests were the instruments of this study. The analysis of the data revealed that there was no significant difference in the participants’ performance on the three expository texts. The results also showed that macromicro versions received the highest mean, while macro versions received the lowest mean. The findings of this study suggested that the combination versions of micro and macro discourse markers contributed more to the comprehension of L2 listeners than only micro and macro versions did.

Keywords: discourse markers, expository texts, listening comprehension, macromarkers, micromarkers

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Tajabadi, F. & Taghizadeh, M. (2014). The Impact of Discourse Signaling Devices on the Listening Comprehension of L2 Learners . International Journal of Progressive Education, 10(2), 73-88.

Harvard
Tajabadi, F. and Taghizadeh, M. (2014). The Impact of Discourse Signaling Devices on the Listening Comprehension of L2 Learners . International Journal of Progressive Education, 10(2), pp. 73-88.

Chicago 16th edition
Tajabadi, Fahimeh and Mahboubeh Taghizadeh (2014). "The Impact of Discourse Signaling Devices on the Listening Comprehension of L2 Learners ". International Journal of Progressive Education 10 (2):73-88.

References
  1. Abdollahzadeh, E. (2009). The effect of rhetorical and cognitive structure of texts on reading comprehension. The Asian EFL Journal, 11(2), 104-128. [Google Scholar]
  2. Brindley, G. (1998). Assessing listening abilities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 171- 91. Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. New York: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. Chaudron, C., & Richards, J. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension  of lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 113-127. [Google Scholar]
  4. Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Variations in the discourse patterns favored by different disciplines and their pedagogical implications. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 146-158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Dunkel, P. A., & Davis, J. M. (1994). The effects of rhetorical signaling cures on the recall of English lecture information by ESL and ENL listeners. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 55-74). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  6. Eslami, Z., & Eslami-Rasekh, A. (2006). Discourse markers in academic lectures. Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 22-38. [Google Scholar]
  7. Farhady,  H., Jafarpour, A.,  &  Birjandi, P. (1995).  Testing language  skills  from  theory  to practice. Tehran: The Centre for Publishing and Compiling University Books in Humanities. [Google Scholar]
  8. Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 6, 167–190. [Google Scholar]
  9. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931-952. [Google Scholar]
  10. Fraser, B. ( 2006). Towards a theory of discourse markers. In Fischer, K. (Ed.), Approaches to discourse markers. (pp. 189–204). Elsevier Press, Amsterdam. [Google Scholar]
  11. Flowerdew, J. (1994). Research of relevance to L2 lecture comprehension. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 55-74). Cambridge: CUP. [Google Scholar]
  12. Flowerdew, J., & Tauroza, S. (1995). The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 435-458. [Google Scholar]
  13. Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (2005). Second language listening: Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Fortuno, B. B. (2006). Discourse markers within the university genre: A contrastive study between Spanish and North American lectures. PhD Dissertation. English Studies Department, Humanities and Social Sciences Faculty, Universitat Jaume. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied linguistics, 28(3), 410-439. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gocheco, P.M. (2011). Evaluating the role of discourse markers and other enabling factors in the academic listening comprehension. The Assessment Handbook, 4(2). [Google Scholar]
  17. Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problem. System, 28, 55-75. [Google Scholar]
  18. Graham, S. (2006). Listening comprehension: the learners’ perspective. System, 34, 165–182. Hall, A. (2007). Do discourse connectives encode concepts or procedures? Lingua, 117, 149– 174. Halliday, M., & R. Hasan. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. [Google Scholar]
  19. Han, D. (2011). Utterance production and interpretation: A discourse-pragmatic study on pragmatic markers in English public speeches. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2776–2794. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hansen, C. (1994). Topic identification in lecture discourse. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 131-145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hansen. (1998). The semantic status of discourse markers, Lingua, 104, 235-260. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hyland, K. (2000). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 3-26. [Google Scholar]
  23. Jeon, J. (2007). A study of listening comprehension of academic lectures within the construction integration model (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Ohio. [Google Scholar]
  24. Jung, E. H. (2003). The role of discourse signaling cues in second language listening   comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 87, 562–577. [Google Scholar]
  25. Jung, E. H. (2006). Misunderstanding of academic monologues by nonnative speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(11), 1928-1942. [Google Scholar]
  26. Knott, A., & Sanders, T. (1998). The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 135-175. [Google Scholar]
  27. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Lerner, J. (1997). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis and teaching Strategies. USA:  Houghton Mifflin Company. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lynch, T. (1998). Questions of presentation: Evaluating success in EAP seminar skills classes. Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 9, 52-62. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. E421 887). [Google Scholar]
  29. Lynch, T. (2011). Academic listening in the 21st century: Reviewing a decade of research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 79–88. [Google Scholar]
  30. Olsen, L. A., & Huckin, T. N. (1990). Point-driven understanding in engineering lecture comprehension.English for Specific Purpose, 9, 33-47. [Google Scholar]
  31. Osada, N. (2004). Listening comprehension research: A brief review of the past thirty years, Dialogue, 3, 53-66. [Google Scholar]
  32. Perez, M. A., & Macia, I. A. (2002). Metadiscourse in lecture comprehension: Does it really help foreign language learners? Allantis, 14(2), 3-21. [Google Scholar]
  33. Redeker, G. (1991a). Linguistic markers of discourse structure [review of Discourse Markers by D. Schiffrin]. Linguistics, 29, 1139-1172. [Google Scholar]
  34. Richards, J. C. (1983). Listening comprehension: Approach, design, procedure. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 219-24. [Google Scholar]
  35. Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  36. Rido, A. (2010). The use of discourse markers as an interactive feature in science lecture discourse in L2 setting. Teflin Journal, 21(1). [Google Scholar]
  37. Rost, M. (2002). Teaching and researching listening. New York: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  38. Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension research. The Modern Language          Journal, 78, 199-221. [Google Scholar]
  39. Rubin, J. (2011). A review of second language listening comprehension research. The Modern Language          Journal, 78(2). [Google Scholar]
  40. Sanders, T. J. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29, 37-60. [Google Scholar]
  41. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 107, 227-265. [Google Scholar]
  42. Shohamy, E., & Inbar, O. (1991). Validation of listening comprehension tests: The effect of text and question type. Language Testing, 8(1), 23-40. [Google Scholar]
  43. Smit, T. (2006). Listening comprehension in academic lectures: A focus on the role of discourse markers. Master’s Thesis, University of South Africa. [Google Scholar]
  44. Taboada, M. (2006). Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. Journal of Pragmatics,      38, 567–592. [Google Scholar]
  45. Tauroza, S., & Allison, D. (1994). Expectation-driven understanding in information systems lecture comprehension. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 35-54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  46. Thompson, I. (1995). Assessment of second/foreign language listening comprehension. In D. J. Mendolson & J. Rubin (Eds). A Guide for the Teaching of Second Language Listening (pp. 31 58). San Diego. CA: Dominie Press. [Google Scholar]
  47. Tyler, A. (1992). Discourse structure and the perception of incoherence in international teaching assistants’ spoken discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 26,713–729. [Google Scholar]
  48. Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second language listener. Language Learning, 53, 463-496. [Google Scholar]
  49. Vandergrift, L. (2006). Second language listening: listening ability or language proficiency? Modern Language Journal, 90, 6–18. [Google Scholar]
  50. Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research. Language Teaching, 40, 191-210. [Google Scholar]
  51. Wei, M. (2009). A comparative study of the oral proficiency of Chinese learners of English: Discourse marker perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Oklahoma State University, Oklahama. [Google Scholar]
  52. Williams, J. (1992). Planning, discourse marking, and the comprehensibility of international teaching assistants. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 693-711. [Google Scholar]
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 10 Issue 2

June 2014

All Articles

International Journal of Progressive Education

International Association of Educators.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License.
Privacy policy     |     Terms of Use     |     Use of Cookies
Creative Commons Lisansı
© 2012 - 2024 - THDSoft e-Journal Management System.