Chapter published in:
Language Learning, Discourse and Cognition: Studies in the tradition of Andrea Tyler
Edited by Lucy Pickering and Vyvyan Evans
[Human Cognitive Processing 64] 2018
► pp. 37–62

Discourse management strategies revisited

Building on Tyler’s early insights regarding international teaching assistant comprehensibility

This chapter revisits Tyler’s early research on ITA comprehensibility while also considering recent work on instructional discourse. The purpose of the study is to explore Tyler’s early conclusions regarding the sources of listeners’ perception of incoherence in ITA classroom discourse. Following Tyler’s methodology, the data collected consists of videotapes of the same lab session taught by four different TAs, two native speakers and two non-native speakers. The transcripts of the lab sessions are analyzed in terms of the use of discourse management strategies to determine the differences between native speaker and non-native speaker TAs. Finally, we discuss how those differences may affect ITA comprehensibility as well as implications for ITA training.
Keywords: intelligibility, international teaching assistants, instructional discourse
Published online: 20 December 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.64.03tap
References

References

Bolden, G. B.
(2009) Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 974–998.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D.
(1999) The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course (2nd ed.) Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L.
(1987) Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 21–52). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. & Richards, J.
(1986) The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7, 113–127.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, C. E., & Tyler, A.
(2005) Discourse strategies in the context of cross-cultural institutional talk: Uncovering interlanguage pragmatics in the university classroom. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & B. S. Hartford (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk (pp. 133–156). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. & Tauroza, S.
(1995) The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 435–458.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gorsuch, G.
(Ed.) (2012) Working theories for teaching assistant development: Time-tested and robust theories, frameworks, and models for TA and ITA learning. Stillwater, OK: New Forums PressGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2015) Talking matters: Research on talk and communication of international teaching sssistants, Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.Google Scholar
Green, G. & Morgan, J.
(1981) Pragmatics, grammar, and discourse. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 167–181). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J.
(1982) Discourse strategies: Studies in interactional sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haan, J.
(2015) Cohesion and perceived proficiency in ITA oral communication across engineering and the sciences. In G. Gorsuch (Ed.), Talking matters: Research on talk and communication of international teaching assistants (pp. 139–165). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R.
(1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hatch, E.
(1992) Discourse and language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hinds, J.
(1987) Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages. (pp. 141–152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Jung, E. H.
(2006) Misunderstanding of academic monologues by nonnative speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1928–1942.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, R.
(1984) The pragmatics of subordination. In C. Brugman & M. Macauley (Eds.). Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society (pp. 481–492). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Levis, J., Muller Levis, G., & Slater, T.
(2012) Written English into spoken: A functional discourse analysis of American, Indian, and Chinese TA presentations. In G. Gorsuch (Ed.), Working theories for teaching assistant development: Time-tested and robust theories, frameworks, and models for TA and ITA learning (pp. 483–528). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.Google Scholar
Liao, S.
(2009) Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the U.S. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1313–1328.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Looney, S.
(2015) Interaction and discourse markers in the ITA-led physics laboratory. In G. Gorsuch (Ed.), Talking matters: Research on talk and communication of international teaching assistants (pp. 75–108). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.Google Scholar
Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., Van Lier, L.
(2001) Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 377–405.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rounds, P.
(1987) Characterizing successful classroom discourse for NNS teaching assistant training. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 643–672.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D.
(1987) Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.
(1981) Narrative, literacy, and face in interethnic communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Tyler, A.
(1992a) Discourse structure and specification of relationships: A cross-linguistic analysis. Text, 12(1), 1–18.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1992b) Discourse structure and the perception of incoherence in international teaching assistants’ spoken discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 26(4), 713–729.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994a) The role of repetition in perceptions of discourse coherence. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(6), 671–688.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994b) The role of syntactic structure in discourse structure: Signaling logical and prominence relations. Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 243–262.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) The coconstruction of cross-cultural miscommunication. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 129–152.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., Bro, J.
(1992) Discourse structure in nonnative English discourse: The effect of ordering and interpretive cues on perceptions of comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(1), 71–86.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., Davies, C.
(1990) Cross-linguistic communication missteps. Text, 10 (4), 385–411.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., Jeffries, A., & Davies, C.
(1988) The effect of discourse structuring devices on listener perceptions of coherence in non-native university teachers’ spoken discourse. World Englishes, 7(2), 101–110.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J.
(1992) Planning, discourse marking, and the comprehensibility of international teaching assistants. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 693–711.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Attardo, Salvatore & Lucy Pickering
2018.  In Language Learning, Discourse and Cognition [Human Cognitive Processing, 64], ► pp. 301 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 october 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.