叙事性文章中的话语标记:以约旦高中英语学习者为例

{"title":"叙事性文章中的话语标记:以约旦高中英语学习者为例","authors":"","doi":"10.47012/jjmll.14.1.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study explores the use and functions of discourse markers (DMs) in the narrative essays of 85 Jordanian high school students adopting Frasers’s (2006) framework. The results show that the most frequently used DMs were elaborative (55.1%), followed by temporal (31.4%), inferential (9.3%) and contrastive (4%) respectively. Regarding the functions of DMs, the results reveal that the participants employed elaborative markers to express addition of information, temporal markers to sequence the events, inferential markers to introduce reasons or results and contrastive markers to express contrast. The results also indicate that the most commonly used DMs were and (97.9%), but (90.9%), and because (76%). The high occurrence of some DMs may be considered to be a strategy adopted by learners to avoid using unknown DMs. In addition, the results showcase that a number of factors may have influenced the use of DMs such as literal translation, lack of knowledge of some DMs, and overgeneralization. The study recommends that textbooks used to teach English in schools should incorporate more attention to DMs, particularly from a functional perspective.","PeriodicalId":197303,"journal":{"name":"Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discourse Markers in Narrative Essays: A Case Study of Jordanian \\nHigh School EFL Learners\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.47012/jjmll.14.1.11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study explores the use and functions of discourse markers (DMs) in the narrative essays of 85 Jordanian high school students adopting Frasers’s (2006) framework. The results show that the most frequently used DMs were elaborative (55.1%), followed by temporal (31.4%), inferential (9.3%) and contrastive (4%) respectively. Regarding the functions of DMs, the results reveal that the participants employed elaborative markers to express addition of information, temporal markers to sequence the events, inferential markers to introduce reasons or results and contrastive markers to express contrast. The results also indicate that the most commonly used DMs were and (97.9%), but (90.9%), and because (76%). The high occurrence of some DMs may be considered to be a strategy adopted by learners to avoid using unknown DMs. In addition, the results showcase that a number of factors may have influenced the use of DMs such as literal translation, lack of knowledge of some DMs, and overgeneralization. The study recommends that textbooks used to teach English in schools should incorporate more attention to DMs, particularly from a functional perspective.\",\"PeriodicalId\":197303,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47012/jjmll.14.1.11\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47012/jjmll.14.1.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本研究以85名采用Frasers(2006)框架的约旦高中生为研究对象,探讨话语标记语(DMs)在叙事文章中的使用和功能。结果显示,使用频率最高的词是阐述(55.1%),其次是时间(31.4%)、推理(9.3%)和对比(4%)。研究结果显示,被试使用精细化标记来表达信息的添加,时间标记来表达事件的顺序,推理标记来介绍原因或结果,对比标记来表达对比。结果还表明,最常用的dm是and (97.9%), but(90.9%)和because(76%)。一些dm的高发生率可能被认为是学习者为避免使用未知dm而采取的一种策略。此外,研究结果表明,许多因素可能会影响到dm的使用,如直译、缺乏对某些dm的了解以及过度概括。该研究建议,学校用于教授英语的教科书应该更多地关注DMs,特别是从功能的角度来看。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Discourse Markers in Narrative Essays: A Case Study of Jordanian High School EFL Learners
This study explores the use and functions of discourse markers (DMs) in the narrative essays of 85 Jordanian high school students adopting Frasers’s (2006) framework. The results show that the most frequently used DMs were elaborative (55.1%), followed by temporal (31.4%), inferential (9.3%) and contrastive (4%) respectively. Regarding the functions of DMs, the results reveal that the participants employed elaborative markers to express addition of information, temporal markers to sequence the events, inferential markers to introduce reasons or results and contrastive markers to express contrast. The results also indicate that the most commonly used DMs were and (97.9%), but (90.9%), and because (76%). The high occurrence of some DMs may be considered to be a strategy adopted by learners to avoid using unknown DMs. In addition, the results showcase that a number of factors may have influenced the use of DMs such as literal translation, lack of knowledge of some DMs, and overgeneralization. The study recommends that textbooks used to teach English in schools should incorporate more attention to DMs, particularly from a functional perspective.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信