Exploring How Input Types Shape Discourse Marker Use in IELTS Speaking: Genuine, Elaborated, and Modified Elaborated

Helta Bryant; Lei Brotchie

doi:10.61227/iltt.v1i2.220

Authors

Helta Bryant University of Szeged
Lei Brotchie University of Szeged,

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61227/iltt.v1i2.220

Keywords:

Discourse Marker, Elaborated, Genuine, IELTS Speaking, Modified Elaborated input

Abstract

Considerable scholarly discussion has emerged regarding the optimal input format for advancing linguistic competence and enhancing oral proficiency, especially concerning IELTS speaking assessments. This investigation examined the comparative efficacy of three input formats—Authentic, Enhanced, and Refined Enhanced—concerning discourse marker deployment within IELTS speaking contexts. Employing a temporal-sequence quasi-experimental framework, 36 Hungarian EFL participants from four established courses undertaking IELTS preparation at a language training center encountered audio materials exemplifying each input category. Treatment cohorts experienced comprehensive discourse marker exposure, whereas the comparison cohort received instruction via identical pedagogical approaches and educators yet with reduced discourse marker emphasis. Post-exposure evaluations were administered subsequent to each input category encounter. Friedman's one-way ANOVA analysis of preliminary and subsequent assessment results demonstrated superior performance following enhanced input exposure relative to authentic input, achieving optimal outcomes within the refined enhanced input configuration. Additionally, results indicate that typographical input augmentation substantially advances oral communication capabilities. This investigation presents multiple pedagogical recommendations.

References

Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.10

Aijmer, K. (2015). Analysing discourse markers in spoken corpora: Actually as a case study. In P. Baker & T. McEnery (Eds.), Corpora and discourse studies (pp. 88–109). Palgrave Macmillan.

Anani Sarab, M., & Karimi, M. (2008). The impact of simplified and interactionally modified input on reading comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. Shahid Beheshti University.

Aşık, A., & Cephe, P. T. (2013). Discourse markers and spoken English: Nonnative use in the Turkish EFL setting. English Language Teaching, 6(12), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n12p144

Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005

Buysse, L. (2015). “Well it’s not very ideal...”: The pragmatic marker well in learner English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 59–89.

Cambridge English Language Assessment. (2011). Assessing speaking performance – Level C1. https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/168620-assessing-speaking-performance-at-level-c1.pdf

Chung, H. (1985). Effects of elaborative modification on second language reading comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Hawai’i at Mānoa.

Crozet, C. (2003). A conceptual framework to help teachers identify where culture is located in language use. In J. Lo Bianco & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching invisible culture: Classroom practice and theory (pp. 34–39). Language Australia.

Crystal, D. (1988). Another look at, well, you know… English Today, 13, 47–59.

Farhat, J., Asim Rai, M., & Arif, S. (2011). A corpus based study of discourse markers in British and Pakistani speech. International Journal of Language Studies, 5(4), 69–86.

Fischer, K. (Ed.). (2006). Approaches to discourse particles. Elsevier.

Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410–439. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm030

Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grimaldi, P. J., & Karpicke, J. D. (2012). When and why do retrieval attempts enhance subsequent encoding? Memory & Cognition, 40, 505–513. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0174-0

Han, G. L. (2008). Pragmatic markers: Toward bi-directional optimization in communication. Southeast University Press.

Hart-Rawung, P., & Li, L. (2008). Globalization and business communication: English communication skills for Thai automotive engineers. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 24, 320–330.

Hellermann, J., & Vergun, A. (2007). Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 157–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.008

Huang, L. F. (2011). Discourse markers in spoken English: A corpus study of native speakers and Chinese non-native speakers [Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham].

IELTS. (2021). IELTS. https://www.ielts.org/

Jakupčević, E. (2019). Young language learners’ use of discourse markers in L2 narratives. English Teaching & Learning, 43(2), 1–18.

Ji-Young, J. (2008). Discourse markers in cross-cultural conversation. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 8(2). Columbia University.

Kim, Y. (2006). Effects of input elaboration on vocabulary acquisition through reading by Korean learners of English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 341–373.

Lai, C., & Zheng, D. (2018). Self-directed use of mobile devices for language learning beyond the classroom. ReCALL, 30(3), 299–318.

Lam, P. W. Y. (2010). Discourse particles in corpus data and textbooks: The case of well. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 260–281. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp026

Lee-Goldman, R. (2011). No as a discourse marker. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10), 2627–2649.

Lewis, D. M. (2006). Discourse markers in English: A discourse-pragmatic view. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 43–59). Elsevier.

Liu, J. Y., Chang, Y. J., Yang, F. Y., & Sun, Y. C. (2011). Is what I need what I want? Reconceptualising college students’ needs in English courses for general and specific/academic purposes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(4), 271–280.

Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley-Blackwell.

Louwerse, M. M., & Mitchell, H. H. (2003). Toward a taxonomy of a set of discourse markers in dialog: A theoretical and computational linguistic account. Discourse Processes, 35(3), 199–239. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3503_1

Magliacane, A. (2020). Erasmus students in an Irish study abroad context: A longitudinal analysis of the use of well and like. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education, 5(1), 92–120.

Maleki, Z., & Pazhakh, A. R. (2012). The effects of pre modified input, interactionally modified input, and modified output on EFL learners’ comprehension of new vocabularies. International Journal of Higher Education, 1(1), 128–137. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v1n1p128

Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.138

Neary-Sundquist, C. (2014). The use of pragmatic markers across proficiency levels in second language speech. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 637–663. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.4.4

Oh, S. Y. (2001). Two types of input modification and EFL reading comprehension: Simplification versus elaboration. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 69–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587860

Othman, Z. (2010). The use of okay, right and yeah in academic lectures by native speaker lecturers: Their “anticipated” and “real” meanings. Discourse Studies, 12(5), 665–681.

Pellicer-Sánchez, A. (2017). Learning L2 collocations incidentally from reading. Language Teaching Research, 21(3), 381–402.

Piamsai, C. (2018). An investigation of Thai learners’ needs of English language use for intensive English course development. PASAA Paritat Journal, 32, 64–97.

Piurko, E. (2015). Discourse markers: Their function and distribution in the media and legal discourse [Master’s thesis, Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences].

Redeker, G. (1991). Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics, 29(6), 1139–1172. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.6.1139

Romero-Trillo, J. (2006). Discourse markers. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 639–642). Elsevier.

Romero-Trillo, J. (2020). Pragmatic markers. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The concise encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell.

Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2016). Second language speech production: Investigating linguistic correlates of comprehensibility and accentedness for learners at different ability levels. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(2), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716414000502

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003

Sitthirak, C. (2013). A comparison between Thai university students and English speakers using contrastive discourse markers. Foreign Language Teaching and Learning (FLLT) Conference, 2(1), 875–886.

Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing are not enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 158–164. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.50.1.158

Webb, S., Newton, J., & Chang, A. (2013). Incidental learning of collocation. Language Learning, 63(1), 91–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00729.x

Xu, L., Chen, P., Liu, F., Zhang, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2018). AntConc manual. https://readthedocs.org/projects/antconc-manual/downloads/pdf/latest/

Yang, S. (2011). Investigating discourse markers in pedagogical settings: A literature review. ARECLS, 8, 95–108.

Ziglari, L. (2008). The role of interaction in L2 acquisition: An emergentist perspective. European Journal of Scientific Research. http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.htm