Pragmatic Markers Used by Arab Postgraduate Students in Classroom Oral Presentations

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Zarqa Intermediate Technical College, Zarqa, Jordan

2 Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia

10.22055/rals.2023.18073

Abstract

The use of pragmatic markers as an aspect of language competence is necessary to present ideas and facts coherently. These markers mainly modify talk so that talk is comprehensible and meaningful, and help the audience follow the sequence of ideas. Failing to use these markers can negatively affect the audience’s comprehension of the presentation and consequently affect the student’s academic achievement. To this end, this study investigated the pragmatic markers used by Arab students during classroom oral presentations. The study focused on identifying the categories and sub-categories of markers as well as examining their linguistic meaning and pragmatic functions. The data were collected using audio-recordings of students' oral presentations and were analyzed based on Fraser’s (1996) classification and functions of pragmatic markers. The findings can inform better oral presentation performance of ESL/EFL learners in general and postgraduate students in particular. They add up to the literature of pragmatic discourses.

Keywords


Abdullah, K. I., & Rahman, N. L. A. (2010). A study on second language speaking anxiety among UTM students. Fakulti Pendidikan, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 1-6.
Adewibowo, D. (2018). A study of discourse markers used in the theses background written by the students of English Department of Bengkulu University. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 2(3), 89-97.
Adriani, N. (2017). The frequency of using discourse markers “Oh, Well, You know, Right, and Anyway” by Indonesian students during their speech prodution. Paper presented at the The 6th Graduate Students Conference on English Education, Linguistics, Literature, and Translation: Linguistic Landscape and English Language Studies, Indonesia.
Ahmad, W., & Maros, M. (2017). Using hedges as relational work by Arab EFL students in student-supervisor consultations. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 17(1), 89-105.
Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach: Edinburgh University Press.
Al-Qahtani, H. A. (2009). Female use of politeness strategies in the speech act of offering: A contrastive study between spoken Saudi Arabic and spoken British English [Unpublished MA thesis]. King Saud University, Saudi Arabia.
Ali, E. A., & Mahadin, R. S. (2015). The use of interpersonal discourse markers by students of English at the University of Jordan. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 6(4), 306 -319.
Alkhawaja, H., & Paramasivam, S. (2015). A comparative discourse analysis of hedges in opinion giving by Arab EFL and Malay ESL learners in WhatsApp focused group discussions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 5th Malaysia International Conference on Foreign Languages (MICFL 2015), Malaysia.
Alraddadi, B. M. J. (2016). The effect of teaching structural discourse markers in an EFL classroom setting. English Language Teaching, 9(7), 16-31.
Alwi, N. F. B., & Sidhu, G. K. (2013). Oral presentation: Self-perceived competence and actual performance among UiTM business faculty students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 98-106.
Arya, T. (2020). Exploring discourse marker use in Thai University students’ conversations. Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 13(1), 247-267.
Babanoğlu, M. P. (2014). A corpus-based study on the use of pragmatic markers as speech-like features in Turkish EFL learners’ argumentative essays. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136(2014), 186-193.
Bird, S., & Liberman, M. (2001). A formal framework for linguistic annotation. Speech communication, 33(1), 23-60.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4 ed.). Boearson Education.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
Cuenca, M.-J. (2008). Pragmatic markers in contrast: The case of well. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(8), 1373-1391.
Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80-88.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies: Oxford University Press.
Faulkner, S. L., & Trotter, S. P. (2017). Data saturation. In J. Matthes, C. S. Davis, & R. F. Potter (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication research methods (pp. 1-2): Wiley.
Fernández, J., Gates Tapia, A., & Lu, X. (2014). Oral proficiency and pragmatic marker use in L2 spoken Spanish: The case of pues and bueno. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 150-164.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education: McGraw-Hill.
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic Markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167-190.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952.
Fraser, B. (2009). An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(2), 293-320.
Gil-Salom, D., & Benlloch-Dualde, J.-V. (2016). Student assessment of oral presentations in German as a foreign language. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 228(1), 656-661.
Gvritishvili, S. (2020). Linguistic and pragmatic analysis of the functioning of pragmatic markers in English and Georgian forensics (Based on courtroom discourse). Online Journal of Humanities (V), 1-15.
Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2017). A comparative study of interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in sales contract written by English natives vs. Iranian non-natives. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Language, Discourse and Pragmatics. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, Special Issue 2017, 75-83.
Hincks, R. (2010). Speaking rate and information content in English lingua franca oral presentations. English for Specific Purposes, 29(1), 4-18.
Hodson, R. (1999). Analyzing documentary accounts (Vol. 128). USA: SAGE Publications.
House, J. (2013). Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca: Using discourse markers to express (inter)subjectivity and connectivity. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 57-67.
Huddlestone, K., & Fairhurst, M. (2013). The pragmatic markers anyway, okay, and shame: A South African English corpus study. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 42(1), 93-110.
Hum, M., Trihartanti, R. P., Hum, M., & Damayanti, D. (2014). The use of ‘Oh’ and ‘Well’as discourse markers in conversation of Bandung State Polytechnic students. Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 7(1), 22-44.
Jalilifar, A., Shooshtari, Z. G., & Mutaqid, S. (2011). The effect of hedging instruction on reading comprehension for Iranian university students. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 69-89.
Kalanzadeh, G. A., Jafarigohar, M., Ghonsooly, B., & Soleimani, H. (2018). Mixed effects of input enhancement, explicit instruction, corrective feedback, and pushed output in an input-output mapping practice. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 57-82.
Laserna, C. M., Seih, Y.-T., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2014). Um... who like says you know: Filler word use as a function of age, gender, and personality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(3), 328-338.
Lin, C.-Y. (2017). “I see absolutely nothing wrong with that in fact I think …”: Functions of modifiers in shaping dynamic relationships in dissertation defenses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 28, 14-24.
Makhmudov, K. (2020). Ways of forming intercultural communication in foreign language teaching. Science and Education, 1(4), 84-89.
Maschler, Y. (2016). The emergence of Hebrew loydea/loydat (‘I dunno MASC/FEM’) from interaction: blurring the boundaries between discourse marker, pragmatic marker, and modal particle. In C. Fedriani & A. Sansó (Eds.) Pragmatic markers, discourse markers and modal particles: New perspectives (pp. 37-69). John Benjamins.
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb), 22(3), 276-282.
Miima, F., Ondigi, D. S., & Mavisi, R. (2013). Teachers’ perception about integration of ICT in teaching and learning of Kiswahili language in secondary schools in Kenya. International Journal of Arts and Commerce, 2(3), 27-32.
Nasser Alsager, H., Afzal, N., & Abdulaziz Aldawood, A. (2020). Discourse markers in Arabic and English newspaper articles: The case of the Arabic lakin and its English equivalent but. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume, 11(13), 154 -165.
Norrick, N. R. (2009a). Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 866-891.
Norrick, N. R. (2009b). Pragmatic Markers: introduction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 863-865.
Quartararo, G. (2020). Pragmatic markers resulting from language contact. The case of sañani in Aymara. Onomázein: Revista de lingüística, filología y traducción de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (48), 128-149.
Rabab’ah, G. (2015). An analysis of conjunctive discourse markers in the EFL classroom: A case study of EFL teachers in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 17(3), 307-325.
Rezaee, M., Aghagolzadeh, F., & Birjandi, P. (2014). The effect of lecturers' gender on the use of discourse markers. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 4(2), 69-87.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers: Cambridge University Press.
Schleef, E. (2009). A cross-cultural comparison of the functions and sociolinguistic distribution of English and German tag questions and discourse markers in academic speech Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives on academic discourse (Vol. 193, pp. 61-79). John Benjamins.
Shakir, R. (2009). Soft skills at the Malaysian institutes of higher learning. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(3), 309-315.
Shengming, Y. (2009). The pragmatic development of hedging in EFL learners [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. City University of Hong Kong.
Wei, M. (2011). A comparative study of the oral proficiency of Chinese learners of English across task functions: A discourse marker perspective. Foreign Language Annals, 44(4), 674-691.
Yakubu, M. S. (2013). An analysis of discourse markers in academic report writing: pedagogical implications. International Journal of Academic Research and Reflection, 1(3), 15-24.
Yang, F.-Y., Chang, C.-Y., Chien, W.-R., Chien, Y.-T., & Tseng, Y.-H. (2013). Tracking learners' visual attention during a multimedia presentation in a real classroom. Computers & Education, 62, 208-220.
Young, R. (2008). Using technology tools in the public school classroom [Unpublished master's thesis]. University of Wisconsin.
Yu, S., & Cadman, K. (2009). EFL learners’ connection with audience in oral presentations: The significance of frame and person markers. TESOL in Context, 2(2), 1-16.
Zareifard, R., & Alinezhad, B. (2014). A study of interactional metadiscourse markers and gender in the defense seminars of Persian speakers. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4(1), 231-238.
Zareva, A. (2013). Self-mention and the projection of multiple identity roles in TESOL graduate student presentations: The influence of the written academic genres. English for Specific Purposes, 32(2), 72-83.
Zareva, A. (2016). Multi-word verbs in student academic presentations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 83-98.
Živković, S. (2014). The importance of oral presentations for university students. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(19), 468-575.
Zumusni, W., Mustapha, W., Ismail, N., Singh, D., Singh, R., Elias, S., & Malaysia, M. (2010). ESL students communication apprehension and their choice of communicative activities. Asian Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 2(1), 22 -29.