Connectives as discourse landmarks

Celle, Agnès; Huart, Ruth

doi:10.1075/pbns.161.02cel

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Discourse markers have been called differently in literature. The terms discourse particle (Schourup, 1983;Fisher and Gruyter, 2000), connective (Salkie, 1995;Axelrod and Cooper, 2001;Celle and Huart, 2007), insert/ discourse marker (Biber et al, 1999), connector (Copage, 1999;Stephens, 1999;Frodesen and Eyring, 2000), discourse marker/ utterance indicator/ filler (Pridham, 2001), linker (Foley and Hall, 2003), pragmatic marker/ discourse marker (Aijmer, 2004;Aijmer and Simon-Vandenbergen, 2006;Carter and McCarthy, 2006) were used. Such scholars as Fisher and Gruyter (2000, p.12) who investigated functional polysemy (multifunctionality) of discourse markers state that the great number of different descriptive terms for this heterogeneous group indicate that firstly there is no single accepted word class definition, and that secondly the terms chosen depend very much on the perspective under which discourse particles are studied.…”

Section: Theoretical Prerequisitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Salkie (1995), Axelrod and Cooper (2001), and Celle and Huart (2007) use the term connective to mean an element used for linking (a word or phrase which indicates a connection between parts of a text), while Pridham (2001, p.30) uses the term utterance indicator to mean a word which features the structure of the conversation. It is noteworthy that the term discourse marker was chosen as the most general term in the present paper for items which help to structure the discourse.…”

Section: Theoretical Prerequisitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spoken Discourse Markers in Learner Academic Writing

Šimčikaitė

2012

StALan

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present article focuses on the use of spoken features in learner academic writing. It aims to analyze the spoken-like nature of learner academic writing through the use of informal or semi-formal discourse markers in their academic essays. Non-experimental methods of data collection were chosen to achieve these objectives (the data was collected from language corpora): quantitative method was used (the frequency counts of discourse markers were indicated); qualitative and contrastive methods were used (the types of discourse markers were discussed and the comparative analysis between the three corpora was made).The results of the present investigation revealed that both the Lithuanian learners and the native learners use stylistically inappropriate (more typical of speech than of academic writing) discourse markers in their academic essays. In contrast to the native learners, the Lithuanian learners tend to use more of spoken discourse markers in their essays. Fifteen functional categories of the spoken discourse markers were distinguished. They helped to disclose which functional types of discourse markers tend to appear more often in the Lithuanian learners' essays. Other spoken features were briefly observed during the analysis of the discourse markers too. Both spoken discourse markers and other lexical items more typical of speech than of academic writing contribute to the overly oral tone of the learners' academic essays.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Prerequisitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Prerequisitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spoken Discourse Markers in Learner Academic Writing

Šimčikaitė

2012

StALan

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Connectives are one-word items or fixed word combinations that express the relationship between clauses, sentences, or utterances in the discourse (Pander and Sanders, 2006, p. 33). Specifically, connectives are recognized as conjunctions (Halliday and Hasan, 1976), cohesive devices (Schiffrin, 1987), discourse markers , and discourse units (Celle and Huart, 2007). They play an important role in language expression fluency as well as argumentation reliability in both spoken and written language (Hu and Li, 2015;Uccelli et al, 2015;Crossley et al, 2016) and in writing and reading (Ferstl and von Cramon, 2001;Crosson and Lesaux, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching and Learning Chinese as a Foreign or Second Language: The Educational Psychology Perspective

2024

Frontiers Research Topics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frontiers is more than just an open access publisher of scholarly articles: it is a pioneering approach to the world of academia, radically improving the way scholarly research is managed. The grand vision of Frontiers is a world where all people have an equal opportunity to seek, share and generate knowledge. Frontiers provides immediate and permanent online open access to all its publications, but this alone is not enough to realize our grand goals. Frontiers journal seriesThe Frontiers journal series is a multi-tier and interdisciplinary set of openaccess, online journals, promising a paradigm shift from the current review, selection and dissemination processes in academic publishing. All Frontiers journals are driven by researchers for researchers; therefore, they constitute a service to the scholarly community. At the same time, the Frontiers journal series operates on a revolutionary invention, the tiered publishing system, initially addressing specific communities of scholars, and gradually climbing up to broader public understanding, thus serving the interests of the lay society, too. Dedication to qualityEach Frontiers article is a landmark of the highest quality, thanks to genuinely collaborative interactions between authors and review editors, who include some of the world's best academicians. Research must be certified by peers before entering a stream of knowledge that may eventually reach the public -and shape society; therefore, Frontiers only applies the most rigorous and unbiased reviews. Frontiers revolutionizes research publishing by freely delivering the most outstanding research, evaluated with no bias from both the academic and social point of view. By applying the most advanced information technologies, Frontiers is catapulting scholarly publishing into a new generation. What are Frontiers Research Topics?Frontiers Research Topics are very popular trademarks of the Frontiers journals series: they are collections of at least ten articles, all centered on a particular subject. With their unique mix of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Frontiers Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area.

show abstract

“…Connectives are one-word items or fixed word combinations that express the relationship between clauses, sentences, or utterances in the discourse ( Pander and Sanders, 2006 , p. 33). Specifically, connectives are recognized as conjunctions ( Halliday and Hasan, 1976 ), cohesive devices ( Schiffrin, 1987 ), discourse markers ( Fraser, 1999 ), and discourse units ( Celle and Huart, 2007 ). They play an important role in language expression fluency as well as argumentation reliability in both spoken and written language ( Hu and Li, 2015 ; Uccelli et al, 2015 ; Crossley et al, 2016 ) and in writing and reading ( Ferstl and von Cramon, 2001 ; Crosson and Lesaux, 2013 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Error Types of and Strategies on Learning Chinese Connectives: A Study on Chinese as a Second Language Learners’ Writing

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The correct use of connectives has great influence on language learners’ writing proficiency, while errors of connectives are common in foreign learners’ interlanguages. This study examines the types of errors that occur in native English-speaking learners’ Chinese writing, the possible causes for the errors, and the learners’ consequent learning strategies. The present research adopted corpora investigation, questionnaire survey, and focus-group interviews to examine the error types, causes of identified errors, and related learning strategies. Data analysis indicated that: (1) the main error types made by native English-speaking learners from high to low are misuse, overuse, mismatch, misplacement, and underuse of connectives; (2) causes related to intralingual transfer greatly contributes to the presence of errors; and (3) memory, social, and cognitive strategies were the most preferred, followed by metacognitive and compensation strategies, and then by effective strategies which were the least preferred. These findings showed that different strategies can be employed to cope with different errors in writing. The study further suggests that teachers and educators need to help native English-speaking learners find strategies that work best for them in terms of learning Chinese connectives.

show abstract

Connectives as discourse landmarks

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Spoken Discourse Markers in Learner Academic Writing

Spoken Discourse Markers in Learner Academic Writing

Teaching and Learning Chinese as a Foreign or Second Language: The Educational Psychology Perspective

Error Types of and Strategies on Learning Chinese Connectives: A Study on Chinese as a Second Language Learners’ Writing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About