Cover not available

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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 2
Discourse management strategies revisited

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

Published online: 20 December 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.64.03tap
Abstract
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.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical assumptions
  • 3.Tyler’s early work on discourse management strategies of ITAs
    • 3.1Repetition
    • 3.2Discourse markers
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Data collection
    • 4.2Data analysis
  • 5.Analysis and discussion
    • 5.1Repetition
    • 5.2Discourse markers
      • 5.2.1The use of and
      • 5.2.2The use of and then
      • 5.2.3The use of so
      • 5.2.4Macro-level discourse markers
  • 6.Limitations
  • 7.Recommendations for future research
  • 8.Implications for ITA training
  • 9.Conclusion
  • References
References (33)
References
Bolden, G. B. (2009). Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 974–998. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. & Richards, J. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7, 113–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(Ed.). (2015). Talking matters: Research on talk and communication of international teaching sssistants, Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies: Studies in interactional sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Jung, E. H. (2006). Misunderstanding of academic monologues by nonnative speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1928–1942. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rounds, P. (1987). Characterizing successful classroom discourse for NNS teaching assistant training. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 643–672. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. (1981). Narrative, literacy, and face in interethnic communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A. (1992a). Discourse structure and specification of relationships: A cross-linguistic analysis. Text, 12(1), 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992b). Discourse structure and the perception of incoherence in international teaching assistants’ spoken discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 26(4), 713–729. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994a). The role of repetition in perceptions of discourse coherence. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(6), 671–688. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994b). The role of syntactic structure in discourse structure: Signaling logical and prominence relations. Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 243–262. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). The coconstruction of cross-cultural miscommunication. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 129–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A., Davies, C. (1990). Cross-linguistic communication missteps. Text, 10 (4), 385–411. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, J. (1992). Planning, discourse marking, and the comprehensibility of international teaching assistants. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 693–711. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Attardo, Salvatore & Lucy Pickering
2018. The theoretical and applied foundations of Andrea Tyler’s approach to the study of language. In Language Learning, Discourse and Cognition [Human Cognitive Processing, 64], ► pp. 301 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Bibliography. In Pragmatics and its Applications to TESOL and SLA, ► pp. 198 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue