The Impact of Explicit Instruction of Metadiscourse Markers on EFL Learners' Listening Comprehension
محورهای موضوعی : Journal of Teaching English Language Studies
tooba mardani
1
(Young Researchers Club, Khorasgan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran)
کلید واژه: Metadiscourse Markers, Listening comprehension, explicit instruction, language proficiency,
چکیده مقاله :
According to Hyland (2000), metadiscourse is recognized as an important means of facilitating communication, supporting a writer's position, and building a relationship with an audience. This study aims to investigate the impact of explicit instruction of metadiscourse markers on EFL learners' listening comprehension. The participants of this study were 50 undergraduate students majoring in English Translation at the University of Khorasgan. To elicit the relevant data, participants were given a pretest of listening comprehension to check their initial knowledge and unprompted use of metadiscourse markers. The participants were divided into two groups randomly. Students in the experimental group were taught metadiscourse markers in addition to a process method, while those students in the control group were thought only a process method. Finally, a post test measuring their listening comprehension with metadiscourse markers in focus was administered. The results indicated generally that explicit instruction of metadiscourse markers significantly improves EFL learners' listening comprehension. The findings call practitioners to pay more serious attention to metadiscourse markers in making EFL curricula.
Afros, E. & C.F. Schryer,. "Promotional (meta) discourse in research articles in language and literary studies". English for Specific Purposes 28 (2009): 58-68.
Crismore, A. (1984). The rhetoric of social studies textbooks: Metadiscourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16 (3), 279-296.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang.
Dahl, T. "Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline?" Journal of Pragmatics 36(2004): 1807-1825.
Dafouz-Mil, E. "The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse". Journal of Pragmatics 40(2008): 95-113.
Duen˜as, P.M. "I/we focus on…: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles". Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(2007): 143-162.
Fuertes-Olivera, P. et.al. "Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines". Journal of Pragmatics 33(2001): 1291-1307.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman/Pearson.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing.
London: Continuum.
Hyland, K.K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (1), 3-26.
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2003). Communication skills in academic monologic discourse. Empirical and applied perspectives. Circulo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 3, 15.
Simin, S. and Tavangar, M. (2009). Metadiscourse knowledge and use in
Iranian EFL writing. Asian EFL Journal, 11, 230-255.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition Communication, 1 (36), 1.
Vande Kopple, W. J. Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In E. Barton and G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 91- 113). NY: Hampton Press, 2002.
Williams, J. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Boston: Scott Foresman.
