A Thesis Proposal

TEACHER’S DISCOURSE MARKERS IN TEACHING SPEAKING

TO THE TENTH GRADE STUDENTS OF SMA N 1
SIGUNUNG SITELLU TALI URANG JEHE

Submitted to the English and Literature Department Faculty of Languages and Arts State
University of Medan In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for doing
Proposal Seminar

RISTO BAHAGIA BERUTU

2163321039

ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS STATE
UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2021
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................. i

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 1

A. The Background of Study........................................................................................ 1

B. The Problem of the Study........................................................................................ 5

C. The Objective of the Study...................................................................................... 5

D. The Scope of the Study............................................................................................ 5

E. The Significance of the Study................................................................................. 6

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.............................................. 7

A. The Theoretical Framework.................................................................................... 7

1. The Nature of Speaking..................................................................................... 7

a. Definition of Speaking................................................................................. 7

b. The Importance of Speaking........................................................................ 8

c. The Function of Speaking............................................................................ 9

2. Classroom Interaction........................................................................................ 10

a. Definition of Classroom Interaction............................................................ 10

b. Types of Classroom Interaction................................................................... 10

c. Participants in Classroom Interaction.......................................................... 11

d. The Aspects of Classroom Interaction......................................................... 12

3. Teacher Talk...................................................................................................... 12

i
 a. The Nature of Teacher’s Talk...................................................................... 12

b. The Aspects of Teacher Talk....................................................................... 13

4. Classroom Discourse Analysis.......................................................................... 13

5. Discourse Markers............................................................................................. 14

a. Definition of Discourse Makers................................................................... 14

b. The function of Discourse Makers............................................................... 17

c. Types of Discourse Makers......................................................................... 18

d. Discourse Makers in Teaching Speaking..................................................... 21

B. Relevant Studies...................................................................................................... 23

C. Conceptual Framework............................................................................................ 24

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................................................... 27

A. The Research Design............................................................................................... 27

B. The Source of the Data Collection.......................................................................... 27

C. The Instrument of Data Collection.......................................................................... 27

D. The Technique for Collecting the Data................................................................... 27

E. The Technique of Data analysis.............................................................................. 29

REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 31

ii
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

A. The Background of Study

Speaking is one of the basic language skills that have to be mastered by English
foreign learners due to it is significant and it is used for communication. It is very important
to be able to speak English regarding that is the most commonly accepted language in the world
so that it will be very beneficial for those who comprehend it is not only to improve their
knowledge and skills but also easier for them to get a job. More than that, they will not find it
difficult to communicate and interact with people around the world when they travel (Gard &
Gautam, 2015).
Besides the role it plays in communication, speaking can also facilitate language
acquisition and development. Language is also for instruction across the school curriculum,
speaking is a crucial tool for thinking and learning. In the teaching-learning process, language
is the basic means of communication in the classroom. The language used in the classroom is
transactional and interactional use of language. Transactional language is mostly used by
teachers in delivering information knowledge for students. In the other hand, the interactional
language is used by the teacher to interact with students. Teaching speaking in English as a
foreign language is practical ways to teach speaking and engage students in authentic speaking
activities in the classroom.
In the teaching-learning process of English, teachers who contribute more to students’
success should lead their students to be good speakers. The students usually make mistakes and
errors in speaking. Those are not only important for the students but also for the teachers and
can be supportive interaction because, through mistakes and errors, teachers and students can
understand the quantity and quality in their speaking.
One common characteristic of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms is that
the teachers may be nonnative speakers of the language they are teaching. The main case faced
by teachers in the teaching and learning process of English in a classroom is how to give a clear
understanding easily to students. In the English classroom, the teacher’s language is not only
the object of course but also the medium to achieve the objective of teaching. Nunan (1991)
states that teacher’s language is important, not only for the organization of the classroom but
also for the process of acquisition of knowledge.

1
Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) felt that classroom language provided a relatively simple

2
 2

and more structured type of discourse than a normal everyday conversation with all it is
unpredictable and ambiguities. Nunan (1987) argues that the language used by the teacher in
the classroom may seriously affect a students’ ability. Therefore, it is useful for classroom
language to be analyzed.
Sinclar and Coulthard (1975) developed a model for analyzing spoken language, i.e.
Classroom Discourse Analysis. The language of the classroom differs from many forms of
spoken language that is formality structured and controlled by one dominant, i.e. The teacher.
The teacher is considered as a the factor in educational success. The language used by
the teacher should have good linguistics features. Their words are chosen and constructed
carefully with good linguistics devices that make their talk have big attention and easier to
understand by the students. Teacher talk needs to organized accordingly so that the coherence
and cohesion of the talk can be maintained when texts are not coherent, They do not make
sense or they make it difficult for the reader/listener to understand.
In teaching English for EFL student the use of the English language is important to
make interaction in the class. Because for EFL students, the classroom is the place that very can
practice language and make an interaction. The classroom has a function as the primary place
where EFL students are mainly engaged in such particular interaction and exposed to English
as the target language.
As the class is the main place to make interactions with EFL, Dagarin (2004) cited that
classroom interaction is a two-way process between the participants in the learning process.
Interactions mean the participation of the teacher and students in the process of teaching. It
means that classroom interaction deals with the interpersonal relationship between all the
elements in the classroom ( the teacher and the students). The teacher does something to the
students: students do something return. As a result, the students learn.
The teacher takes an important role in creating a dynamic atmosphere that will
stimulate students to participate in the classroom. Then, the teacher also has to employ a
variety of activities and encourage their use of communication strategies in order to produce an
effective classroom interaction.
Not only the teacher, but the students also have important roles in the classroom. They
cannot be positioned as the object but sometimes they have to put themselves as the subject. It
means that they are not only positioned as the receiver but also as an independent one who can
give ideas, speak up, and also contribute to the language in the classroom. They have their own
opinion, strategies, and intention in the classroom rather than being a passive one who absorbs
teachers’ information monotonously to the performance of the classroom activities. If the
 3

classroom interaction runs effectively, the classroom atmosphere will be a place where students
will pleasantly try to communicate in a foreign language. In teaching speaking in English as a
foreign language in the classroom, the words oh, well, but, you, know, and okay, listen, right,
etc are often found in teacher talk. Those words are typically discourse markers and perform a
very important function in signaling changes in the interaction or organization of learning
(Walsh,2011: 12). Discourse markers in teachers talk play an important role for students to
understand teacher language better, which hence helps them to improve the learning efficiency
(Othman,2010).
Teachers in teaching English as a Foreign language classroom used different discourse
markers in their talk to make the teaching effective and enhance learner’s participation in the
classroom. Othman (2010) stated that the appropriate use of discourse markers by the teacher in
the teaching and learning process not only can improve the participation of students but also
contribute to the effectiveness of learning. Discourse markers have an especially important role
in enabling teachers to structure their discourse, in that way making it possible for learners to
interpret the communicative demands of the context and participate in activities more
successfully.
Based on the researcher’s observation in SMA N 1 SITELLU TALI URANG JEHE. It
was found that there was a lack of interaction between teacher and students. Where the teacher
can not interact with the students well. When the teaching-learning process in the classroom the
student did not give a response for the teacher questions as feedback for the teacher. it causes
the teacher to just explained the material without paying attention to the function of discourse
markers in teaching-learning. Meanwhile, the discourse markers are important to use in the
classroom which is one function of discourse markers as an interpersonal function to builds to
the solidarity in the classroom interaction. The one function of interpersonal for the teacher and
students is to take the response and build social interaction when teaching in the classroom. As
a result. The teacher and students can give a response and feedback for teaching-learning. The
student can talk active when the teacher can to build the solidarity and good atmosphere in the
classroom, but in this case the teacher talked too much to explain the material and answered the
questions because the students only had a little attention to the teacher talk because the teacher
not paying attention for the use the discourse markers. So, the teacher’s explanation difficult to
follow by students and the class will not stay together and will not work in harmony.
 4

Below this teacher and students interaction :

T : “Report text ini adalah jenis text laporan. Before kita sudah belajar jenis text.Ada
recount text, Narrative text. Jadi text ini adalah jenis text yang menggambarkan
secara umum berdasarkan fakta, So, informasi yang diperoleh dari laporan
wartawan. Dari apalagi?”
S : “TV one.”

T : “Iya, ada laporannya mungkin dari orang, dari wartawan. Ada banjir, accident,
kebakaran. Then, Any else?”
S: “Kebakaran, banjir, supir angkot berkelahi.”
T: “Iya, misal wabah penyakit demam berdarah.”
T: “This text is factual text and specific description, katanya text ini menggunakan?”
S : ( Silent )

T: “Secara umum mengunakan informasi data umum dan informasinya objective.

Artinya, penyampaian yang benar. Bukan istilah seperti apa?”

T : “Narrative text, ya ?”
S : “Khayalan.”

T; “Yes, khayalan.textmu ini nyata So misalnya dikatakan orang kamu kecelakaan

misalnya parah ya, kalau kamu katakan ngak parah, ya berarti ga apa ?
T: Ga Objektif

T: Kemudian apalagi katanya, Text nya dtulis oleh orang ke tiga. Misalnya ada suatu
kecelakaan , misalnya antara siapa? ancaman dengan Azis, jadi misalnya orang
ketiga tadi si Sekar,
S: Sekar...Sekar,, Kau

T: Maka si Sekar menggunakan apa membuat laporan untuk mengatakan bahwa terjad
kecelakaan, maka orang ketiga tadi siapa?
S: Sekar

T: Dilaporkan oleh orang ketiga. Jadi katanya opini/pendapat seseorang dsingkatkalah

dalam laporan tadi. katanya berdasarkan fakta, kuat data informasnya. contohnya ?
T: Laporan dar i newspaper ya, kan ada fakta fakta nya gambarnya, kemudian dari
apalagi magazine , majalah atau laporan dari televison berita.
 5

When the teacher asked the question for the first time and second times by using
discourse markers the students give the response and the answer the question, in this case, the
teacher use discourse markers( interpersonal ) and ( structural ) that help the teacher to get
feedback from the students, guide and control the class so the teacher can get responses from the
student by using the discourse markers. In this utterance the teacher using discourse markers (So,
Yes, Then, Before) when the teacher asking the question. So by applying discourse markers the
student gives a response for the teacher’s question as feedback for the teacher to guide the
student’s attention.
Discourse markers in teacher talk play an important role for students to understand
teacher language better, which hence helps them to improve learning efficiency and make the
students more active in the classroom. Discourse markers also help establish interpersonal
relationships in the classroom, creating a better atmosphere for active participation. With the
use of discourse marker by the teacher, it will make the texts appropriately construct. Moreover,
to express an utterance, discourse markers are also needed to make it meaningful.

B. The Problem of the Study

1. What types of discourse markers used by the teacher in English classroom

interaction?
2. Why does the teacher use the type of discourse markers in the way she does in
English classroom interaction?

C. The Objective of the Study

Based on the background of the study, The objective of the study are :

1. To describe the types of discourse markers are use by the teacher in English
classroom interaction
2. To find out the reasons why the teacher use the type of discourse markers in the way
she does in the classroom.

D. The Scope of the Study

The scope of the study is focused on teacher’s talk that shows discourse markers in
teacher- students and student-teacher communication that will be concerned in teaching
speaking.
6
 7

E. The significance of the study

Based on the problems of the study the objectives of the study are ;
1. Theoretically, The result of the study can be a reference for other teachers so it
can improve their language use in teaching way in the classroom. For the
students of the English department who want to conduct further research, this
result of the study will give them new useful information and improve
researchers’ knowledge regarding speech and discourse.
2. Practically, for the teachers as a reference to know how the teacher use discourse
markers in classroom interaction. For the readers and the learners of English,
the findings will be useful for helping them to develop their English skills
especially in how to make good speech or text with appropriate discourse
markers.
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A. The Theoritical Framework

These following terms are clarified for the purpose to explain all the terms related to the
theory of speaking skill, and digital media so that both reader and writer have some perception.
1. The Nature of Speaking

a. Definition of Speaking

Many definitions of speaking have been proposed by language. Speaking derives from
the word “Speak”. According to the Oxford dictionary, “Speak” means say things; talk, be able
to use language, make a speech, express ideas, feelings, etc. Speaking is the verbal use of
language to communicate with others. In addition, Hughes explains that speaking in interactive
and according to accomplish pragmatic goals through interactive discourse with another
speaker of the language.
Tarigan (1990:3-4) defines that speaking is a language skill that is developed in child
life, which is produced by listening skill, and at that period speaking skill is learned.
As defined by Gard & Gautam (2015) Speaking is one of the basic language skills that
have to be mastered by English foreign learners due to it is significant and it is used for
communication. It is very important to be able to speak English regarding that is the most
commonly accepted language in the world so that it will be very beneficial for those who
comprehend it not only to improve their knowledge and skills but also easier for them to get
a job.

Speaking is a productive/oral skill. It consists of producing systematic verbal utterances

to convey meaning. Nunan (2003) states that Teaching speaking is sometimes considered a
simple process. Commercial language schools around the world hire people with no training to
teach conversation. Although speaking is totally natural, speaking in a language another hand
our own is anything but simple.
Richards and Renandya (2002) state that “Speaking a language is especially difficult for
students as a foreign language learners because effective oral communication requires the
ability to use the language appropriately in social interactions. Speaking is the skill that
students will be judged upon in most real- life situations. It is an important part of everyday
interaction and most often the first impression of a person is based on his/ her ability to speak
7
fluently and comprehensibly. Thus teachers have a responsibility to prepare the students as
much as possible

8
 8

to be able to speak English in the real life situations. To achieve the goal, the English material
and task should meet the students’ needs and also reflect real-world language or situation.
Speaking is to express or communicate opinions, feelings, ideas, etc, by or as talking
and it involves the activities in the part of the speaker as psychological, physiological
(articulator), and physical (acoustic) stages. (Hornby,1985).To emphasize the important use of
speaking, Nunan (1999) states that among the four skills; listening, speaking, reading, and
writing. Speaking is the most important aspect of learning a second language.
Harmer (2001) defines speaking ability as the ability to speak fluently presupposed not
only knowledge language features, but also the ability to process information and language ‘ on
the spot’. It requires the ability to cooperate in the management of speaking turns and non-
verbal language. It happens in a real situation and has little time for detailed planning.
Therefore, fluency is required to reach the goal of the conversation.
Harmer (2001) notes down that form the communicative point of view, speaking has
many different aspects including two major categories- accuracy, involving the correct use of
vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation practiced through controlled and guided activities;
and fluency, considered to be the ability to keep going when speaking spontaneously.
Speaking is generally thought to be the most important of the four skills. Indeed, one
frustration commonly voiced by learners is that they have spent years studying English, but still
they can not speak it. The most difficult aspect of spoken English is accomplished via
interaction with another speaker. This is one reason why many of the students are disappointed
when using the foreign language for the first time in real interaction. The students have not
prepared for spontaneous communication and could not cope with all of its simultaneous
demands.
b. The Importance of Speaking

By speaking we do not mean merely uttering words through the mouth. It is means
conveying the message through the words mouth. This skill is also neglected by students in the
classroom, they do not get any chance either in the classroom or outside to speak English.
Learning to speak also demands a lot of practice and attention. We learn to speak our mother
tongue just by listening and repeating. In similar manner, a foreign language is learned by
imitation and reproduction. Richards (2008) states When people meet, they exchange greetings,
engage in small talk, recount recent experiences, and so on because they wish to be friendly
and to establish a comfortable zone of interaction with others. This indicates that connected to
each other. Since language as an instrument of communication, there is no excuse for a
 9

language learner to not be able to speak the language learned.

Speaking is one of the focuses of English teaching. The principle of teaching English is
all the process of teaching should be communicative because the graduates of schools are
directed to have life skill communication to meet the need for communicating their study to a
higher level.

c. The Function of Speaking Skills

The mastery of speaking skills in English is a priority for many second and foreign
language learners. Several language experts have attempted to categorize the functions of
speaking in human interaction. According to Brown and Yule (1989) there are three functions
of speaking “ three-part version of Brown and Yule’s framework: talks interaction: talk as a
transaction: talk as a performance. Each of these speech activities is quite distinct in terms of
form and function and requires different teaching approaches.

There are three functions of speaking:

1. Talk as interaction

Speaking as interaction refers to the interaction which serves a primarily social function.
When people meet, they exchange greetings, engage in small speaking and chit chat, recount
recent experiences because they wish to be friendly, and establish a comfortable zone of
interaction with others. The focus is more on the speakers and how they wish to present
themselves to each other. This is about how people try to convey his/her message to other
people. Therefore, they must use speaking skills to communicate with other people. The main
intention of this function is a social relationships.
2. Talks as performance

Speaking as performance refers to public speaking. It is a talk that transmits information

to the audiences such as public announcements and speeches. Speaking as performance tends to
be informed of monolog rather than dialogue, often follow a recognizable format and it is
closer to the written language than conversational language. In this type of spoken language,
students and teachers usually focus on the meaning or talking what their way to understanding.
 10

3. Speaking as transaction

Speaking as transaction refers to a situation where the focus is on the message about
what is said or achieved in order to make people understood clearly and accurately. In this type
of spoken language, students and teachers usually focus on the meaning or talking what their
way to understanding.
2. Classroom Interaction
a. Definition of Classroom Interaction

Interaction can be defined as the collaborative exchange of thoughts, feelings, or ideas

between two or more people resulting in a reciprocal effect on each other (Brown,2001: 165).
Interaction simply means communication. This includes talking and listening, head nods,
gestures, glances, paths on the backs, frowns, and many other behaviors to which people assign
meaning (Tubbs,2001). Therefore, interaction is needed in the teaching and learning process
because they are expected to give a response between teachers and students in the class
directly.
While classroom interaction is the communication between teachers and students in the
classroom. He further highlighted that interaction is the heart of communicative competence, it
is what communication is all about (Brown,2001).
Dagarin (2004) argued that classroom interaction is a two way process between the
participant in the language process, the teacher influences the learners and vice versa. It means
that, classroom interaction deals with the interpersonal relationships between teachers and
students. If the interpersonal relationship is good, it is assumed that the teaching and learning
process will run well. the other hand, if it is bad, the process of teaching and learning will not
run well. Furthermore, interaction in the classroom is categorized as pedagogic interaction. The
reaction includes a response to a question, and item in a drill, a word pronounced, and a
sentence written (Sarosdy et.al, 2006:35).

b. Types of Classroom Interaction

Sudjana (1995) states there were three communication patterns in the teacher-student
interaction process, namely communication as action, interaction, and interaction.

1. Communication as action or one-way communication The teacher as the giver f the action
and the student as the recipient of the action. Active teachers, passive students, teaching is
seen as an activity to convey learning material.

2. Communication as interaction or two-way communication The teacher can act as an action

 11

giver or receiver of the action. Conversely, students can the recipient of the action can
also give the action. The dialogue will occur between teachers and students.
3. Communication as a transaction or communication in many directions
Communication does not only occur between teachers and students, but also
between students and students. Students are required to be active rather than
teachers. Students, like teachers, can function as learning resources for other
students.

c. Participants in Classroom Interaction

Dagarin ( 2004:129) has categorized some interaction conducts by the participants in the
classroom. These are the most frequent ways of organizing classroom interaction, depending on
who communicates with whom:
1) Teacher- Learners

The first from classroom interaction is (teacher-learners) interaction. This interaction

established when a teacher talks to the whole class at the same time. The teacher takes the role
of leader or controller and decides about the type of process of the activity. The primary
function of such interaction is controlled practicing of certain language structures or
vocabulary. Mostly they are in the form of repeating structures after the teacher (the model).
This type of practice is also referred to as a drill.

2) Teacher-Learner

The second arrangement is conducted when the teacher refers to the class but expects
only one student or a group of students to answer. It is often for the evaluation of students
individually. This arrangement can also be used for an informal conversation at the beginning
of the lesson or for leading students into a less guided activity.

3) Learners-Learners
The third type of interaction is called “pair work”. Students get an assignment,
which they have to finish in pairs. The teacher holds the roles of a consultant or adviser,
helping when it is necessary. After the activity, the teacher puts the pairs into a whole
group, and each pair reports on their work.

4) Learners-Learners
 12

The last type of classroom interaction is called “group work”. As with your pair
work, the teachers’ function here is that of a consultant and individual groups report on
their work as a follow-up activity. The last two ways of the organization are particularly
useful for encouraging interaction between the students.

d. The Aspects of Classroom Interaction

1) Teacher Talk

The kinds of language used by the teacher for the instructions in the classroom is known
as teacher talk. It is an indispensable part of foreign language teaching in organizing activities.
According to pedagogical theory, the language that teachers use in classrooms determines to a
larger degree whether a class will succeed or not. In fact, teacher talk plays an important role
during the learning process. This can be explained that the teacher talk plays a crucial role in
managing the class. In organizing the learning activities, and in giving instructions on the
content of the lesson.
Besides being a way to deliver something to the students, teachers’ talk is urgent not
only to organize and manage the situations in the classroom but also becomes a key in the
process of acquiring information for the students. In terms of the acquisition, teachers’ talk is
important because it is probably the major source of comprehensible target language input the
learners are likely to receive.
2) Students Talk

Students talk is the language used by students to interact or communicate in the

classroom. It is used as the students’ responses to react to what has been delivered by the
teacher. It is also used to express students’ opinions, thought, feelings, ideas and becomes a
way for students to ask and gain more information from the teacher and the other students.
Furthermore, it will increase and their knowledge as the goal of learning activities.

3. Teacher Talk

a. The Nature of Teacher Talk

Teacher talk is the utterances that a teacher does in the teaching and learning process.
Lei (2009) stated that good communication in the teaching and learning process depends on
good and effective teacher talk. Teacher talk is very important in order to create good
interactions during the teaching and learning process. Teacher talk needs to be organized
accordingly so that the coherence and cohesion of talk can be maintained. As confirmed by
Harmer (2007) that students learn from the teacher talk. That is the reason why the teachers are
 13

expected to know how to talk to students and adjust the language that they use because teacher
talk gives a chance for students to hear the language which they more or less understand.
Lei (2009) states that “communicative teacher talk has some features. Some of them are
referential questions and content feedback. Referential questions are questions in which the
teacher genuinely does not know the answer by posing such questions, the teacher engages
students to answer the question and talk. Content feedback means the teacher comments on
what students are saying.”
Harmer (2007) pointed out that too much teacher talk can make students lose their
chance to talk, and he actually stated that a good teacher maximizes times for students to talk
and minimize the time for him/her to talk. Both of them must in balance. Too much teacher talk
will make the students passive and static. They cannot improve their English acquisition from
the teacher. But it will be also bad if the teacher has too little talk, the students will not get
enough knowledge from the teacher.

b. The Aspects of Teacher Talk

According to Johnson as quoted by Richard (1992) there were three major aspects of teacher
talk, they are :
1. Physiological aspect

This aspect related to the voice produced by the teacher. The teacher has to be able to control
his voice during he speaks in the classroom.
2. Interpersonal aspect

This aspect related to how the teacher speaks with utterances that structured appropriately
with the situation to the students so it can make a good classroom climate.
3. Pedagogical aspect

This aspect related to how the teacher organizes the lesson, so it can create a good
interaction.

4. Classroom Discourse Analysis

Rymes Betsy (2016) states Classroom Discourse analysis provides teachers with the
tools to analyze talk in their own classrooms. Through discussions of classic and contemporary
classrooms as well as examples, activities, and questions.
Graesser (1997) states classroom discourse refers to the language that teachers and
students use to communicate with each other in the classroom. Talking, or conversation is the
 14

medium through which most teaching takes place, so the study of classroom discourse is the
study of the process of face to face classroom teaching.
Yule (2006) states that “the term ‘discourse’ is usually defined as language beyond the
sentence”(p.142). The analysis of discourse entails social perspective on language use and
communication exchanges which included spoken and written discourse. In other words,
discourse analysis views that discourse cannot be separated from everyday life and what we do
with language. As stated by Brenes (2005), discourse analysis gives emphasis on how
language is used by speakers and understood by listeners in verbal communication.
The discourse that happened in the classroom is classroom discourse. Classroom
discourse analysis is an aspect of classroom process research, which is one way for teachers to
monitor both the quantity and quality of students’ output. Classroom discourse analysis that can
be simply defined as investigating language is used in the classroom to understand how each
pattern influences each other. There are some reasons for the importance of classroom
discourse.
In a discourse, there should be a particular unit of language that is used socially
( Schiffrin, 2001). From that statement, it can be known that discourse analysis is related to
linguistics elements to increase social awareness in understanding written and oral texts. One of
the discussions of discourse analysis is discourse markers.

5. Discourse Markers

a) Definition of Discourse Markers

Discourse Markers have been studied by many researchers in the last twenty years by
using different proposals and approaches. Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik (1985)
emphasize the interactional effect of these words and their importance in developing ongoing
and intimate relationships with people by explaining that phrases such as well, y ’know, really,
are sharing devices and intimacy signals in everyday conversation. The main figures are
Schriffin (1987), Fraser(1999), De Fina(1997), Fung and Carter (2007), Levinson (1983), and
Othman(2010).
As what has been stated by Schiffrin (1987) that Discourse Markers are linguistics
elements that signal relation between units of talk, relations at the exchange, action, ideational,
and participation framework level of the discourse and the discourse markers are sequentially
meaning depend on elements that bracket units of talk. She suggests that a discourse markers
connect directly to the unit of talk prior to it and following it. These units help to determine
 15

the choice of discourse markers and the

 meaning speakers intend and listeners infer. Discourse Markers have a function in
relation to enduring talk and text. In the other word, that discourse markers could be considered
as a set of linguistic expressions comprised to members of word classes as varied as
conjunction such as and, but, or interjections such as oh, adverbs now, and then, and
lexicalized phrase as like you know and I mean.
Discourse could be defined as a form of language use which includes the functional
aspects of a communication event ( Van Dijk, 1997) or pieces of language larger than a
sentence that functions together to convey a given idea or information. (Sharnmada & Yakubu,
2013), Discourse Markers are used in conversation and writing or signal the relationships
between ideas or information in a given context. They are words or phrases used by speakers or
writers to link ideas or information in discourse. Moreover, Fung and Carter (2007) stated that
Discourse Markers are among these units of talk uttered by the speakers to make their speech
more understandable and rich.
Levinson (1983), in his book named Pragmatics, viewed Discourse Markers as an
independent class that worthy to be studied, although he obviously did not entitle it. He
believed that those are used in discourse since they provide contextual coordinates for
utterances namely contributing to building the local coherence jointly constructed by the
addresser and the hearer in their discourse, context, meaning, and action. There are eleven
Discourse Markers in which he focuses, those are oh, well, and, but, or, so, because, now, then,
you know and I mean.
Lam (2009) points out the Discourse Markers are crucial for learners to communicate
successfully at the pragmatic level of interaction. In other words, Discourse Markers may help
non-native learners of English gain nativeness in the spoken or written discourse of a foreign
language. This feeling of nativeness will help learners feel comfortable while learning a foreign
language, with the help of Discourse Markers in spoken discourse, the naturalness of talk can
be attained and similarly in written discourse, the text gains a higher level of coherence
( Halliday & Hasan, 1976).
Another definition by Fraser (1999) that discourse markers are practical markers which
provide remark on the following utterance, that is they show the way of an utterance and
indicate how the speaker intends basic message to relate to the previous discourse. Therefore,
discourse markers are used as a pointer of chronological discourse in social interaction and the
important thing of the analysis of discourse markers is to know how speaker and hearers jointly
integrate forms, meanings, and action to make overall sense out of what is said ( Schriffin,
27
1987-49).
Schiffrin (1987) states that Discourse markers are defined as “sequentially dependent
elements which bracket units of talk and serve to connect utterances”. It means that discourse
markers appear in verbal communication and have the function to create connectivity between
the speaker and listener to produce a successful conversation where the speaker can express
their emotions, hesitations, surprise, contrasting ideas, and seeking agreement from the
audience.
To understand discourse markers, the marker should be seen from the contributions: the
contribution from the marker itself and the characteristic of the discourse gap where the marker
occurs( Schriffin,2006:272).
Discourse markers work not only as a grammatical function but also as effective
interactional features. The markers take apart as a connector in grammatical function and also
useful to manage conversations that to effective interaction. These are used in almost very
expressions of language function where exchanging information happens if the appropriate
expression is uttered.
In short, discourse markers are words, phrases, or expressions that can be used as a
partner for speaker or writer to connect and organize what to say and to write. These markers
are used in order to express an attitude in a discourse.

Brinton (1996) has compiled an inventory of thirty-three markers received scholarly

attention and proposed a broad number of characteristics of these words. They are ah, actually,
after all, almost, and, and ( stuff, things), like that, anyway, basically, because, but, go ’say’,
if, I mean/think, just, like, mind you, moreover, now, oh, ok, or, really, right/all right, so, say,
sort/kind of, then, therefore, uh-huh/mhm, well, yes/no, you/I know, you see. Those are later
taken up by Jucker & Ziv (1998) reordering them to combine features that touch to the same
level of linguistic description: phonological and lexical, syntactic, semantic, functional, and
sociolinguistics features.

There are several characteristics of discourse markers devised by ( Jucker & Ziv (1998)
and Brinton ( 1996), as follows:
a. Discourse Markers are commonly a feature of oral rather than a written discourse.
b. They appear with high frequency in oral discourse.
c. They are short and phonologically reduced items
d. hey might occur at the beginning, middle, or end of the sentence.
28
 e. They are considered to have little a little or no prepositional meaning, or at least to be
difficult to lexically specify.
f. As Discourse Markers may occur outside the syntactic structure or loosely attached to it,
they have no clear grammatical function.
g. They seem to be optional rather than obligatory features of discourse. Their absence doe
not read a sentence ungrammatical and/or unintelligible but does remove a powerful clue.
h. They might be multifunctional, operating on the local and global levels simultaneously
though it is difficult to differentiate a pragmatically motivate from a non- pragmatically
motivated use of the form.

b. The function of Discourse Markers

Castro (2009) has categorized Discourse Markers into ten functions grouping into two
big umbrellas initiated by Brinton (1996) named textual and interpersonal function. The textual
function is highly related to the way the speaker structures meaning as text, creating cohesive
passages of discourse, using language in a way that is relevant to the context. Whereas
interpersonal function refers to the nature of the social exchange called the role of the speaker
and the role assigned to the hearer.
This is the flow chart of the inventory of discourse markers functions proposed by
Castro (2009) and adopted from Brinton (1996).

Table 2.1. Pragmatic Function of discourse markers adapted

from Brinton,1996,pp.35-40.
To initiate discourse, Opening frame marker
including claiming the
attention of the hearer
Textual Functions
To close discourse Closing frame marker
To aid the speaker in Turn takers (Turn givers)
acquiring or relinquishing
the floor
To serve as filler or Fillers
delaying tactic used to
(Turn keepers)
sustain discourse or hold
the floor

29
 To indicate a new topic Topic switchers

or partial shift in topic

To denote either new or Information Indicators

old information
To mark sequential Sequence/relevance

dependence Markers
To repair one’s own or Repair markers

others’ discourse
Subjectively, to express a Response/reaction
response or a reaction to markers
the preceding discourse Back –channel signals
including also backchannel
Interpersonal Functions signals of understanding
and continued attention
while another speaker is
having his/her turn.

Interpersonally, to effect Confirmation – seeker

cooperation sharing, Face –savers
including confirming
shared assumptions,
checking or expressing
understanding, requesting
confirmation, expressing
difference or saving face
(politeness).

c. Types of Discourse Markers

Fung and Carter (2007) suggest that discourse markers are socially sensitive and
pragmatically significant. On the basis of a corpus-driven approach, they categories English
Discourse Markers into four categories, They are: interpersonal, referential, structural, and

30
cognitive.
1. Interpersonal

Interpersonal discourse markers are useful to serve as solidarity building devices to

enforce and mark shared knowledge, attitudes, and responses. On the interpersonal level,
discourse markers are useful conversational devices for social interaction. There are four subset
categories including backchannels, stance markers, hedges, and speaker-discourse-hearer
indicators. Firstly, mostly referred to as backchannels, discourse markers signal active
listenership for the speaker to continue the speech (Carter and McCarthy, 2006). See the
following examples:
A: So first of all, we have to meet Mr. Abdul because he is got a new car.
B: I see

A: Then we’ll pick up B: Right

A: So, We’ll come around to your hometown B: Okay, I see, right, thanks a lot.

Secondly, the function as stance markers (including interjections) to indicate the attitude
of the speaker, which bear similar features as commentary adjuncts in Halliday and Hassan
(1976). This category, as Halliday and Hasan (1976) notice, is loosely attached to the clause
structure. They signal a boundary between units, realized by pause/tone in speaking(comma in
writing). For instance, unfortunately in example (3) expresses a regretting feeling which is not
affected by its syntactic flexibility ( Halliday and Hasan, 1976)
a. Unfortunately, the doctor hasn’t left an address.
b. The doctor, Unfortunately, hasn’t left an address.
c. The doctor hasn’t, Unfortunately, left an address.
d. The doctor hasn’t left an address, Unfortunately.

Hedges expresses the speaker’s intention to emphasize or delimit the degree of

assertiveness (Carter and McCarthy,2006). This category includes intensifiers (e.g. true,
indeed) and softeners (just, sort of, kind of). The deictic feature enables discourse markers to
index discourse and the participants When referring to the discourse itself, the use of discourse
markers like here, see, listen, look helps to raise listeners’ attention on what is important for the
speakers. Discourse markers can also direct a connection between the participants. Words like
you know and you see shorten the social distance between the-speakers and listener through

31
marking shared knowledge (Fox Tree and Schrock, 2002)
The expression of interpersonal Markers are :
yeah, yes/no, great, right, oh, sure, well, go, on, frankly, actually, to be honest, of
course, oh, wow, gosh, indeed, true, sort of, just, kind of, please, hear, see, listen, look, wait,
what else?; you know, you see, you understand?; okay?.

2. Referential
Discourse marker’s main function on the referential level is to relate discourse units
based on various meanings including cause and sequence, contrast, comparison, and so on. For
example:
a. Even if it rains, he comes anyway.
b. Though it rains heavily, he arrives.
c. I would like some drinks Unless They are sold out.
d. Well, as long as you agree.

The expression of Referential markers are :

because, since, and, then, so, hence, therefore, as a result, similarly, in the same way,
however, but, even so, still, on the other hand, while, yet, though, although, even if, even
though, if, unless, whenever, as long as, so long as, provided that, and, or, for example, in
particular, such as, what’s more, also, in addition, furthermore.

3. Structural
Discourse markers are useful devices for organizing topics and signaling sequences of
talk in relation to discourse structure (Carter and McCarthy, 2006; Fung and Carter,2007. It
means that the structural markers are used to orientate and organize the discourse in progress
and signal links and transitions between topics. Examples like Right, well, now, okay, so enable
the speaker to open, shift, interrupt, digress, resume, and generalize utterances or topics. For
instance, in classroom contexts, the opening and closing are the most common positions that
teachers employ discourse markers (Carter and McCarthy, 2006). See the following examples:

a. Now, let’s start our lesson today

b. Okay, So that’s all for today and see you next week.

32
 The expressions are included:
to begin with, let’s start, now, okay, right, all right, as to, so, now, what about, how
about, but, okay, well, right, by the way, talking of, anyway, back to my point, and, so, after all,
as I was saying, in general, to sum up, generally speaking, first of all, firstly, secondly, lastly,
finally, for another thing.

4. Cognitive
Cognitive markers help in denoting the speaker’s thinking processes, marking repairs,
and marking the speaker’s assessment of the listener’s knowledge of the utterances. Discourse
markers signal the speaker’s cognitive process during the interaction, including denoting the
thinking process(well, I think), reformulation ( I mean), elaboration (like), and
hesitation(well). this type allows more time and space for the speaker to reorganize and modify
his/her speech (Fung and Carter,2007). The example:

a. I mean He is a nice fellow normally, but he is a hell of a big head in some way.
b. I think you should cool a little. In other words, sit down and wait for a little bit.

The expressions of Cognitive Markers are:

that’s to say, I mean, if you like, well, to put it in another way, in other words, in my
opinion, I mean, like, well, I think, I suppose, sort of.

d. Discourse Markers in Teaching Speaking

In the classroom, the use and functions of discourse markers are the essential
interactional factor in classroom teacher- student conversation. Discourse markers perform very
important functions in signaling changes in the interaction of the organization of learning. The
functions like a punctuation mark on a printed page consider how difficult it would be to read a
newspaper without punctuation. The same applies to a classroom if teachers fail to make
appropriate use of discourse markers.

The functions of discourse markers which are the textual and interpersonal functions are
particularly significant in the process of teaching and learning. The use of discourse markers
will lead to a better interpretation of texts and speech, and on the whole, help improve learners’
skills not only in speaking, writing but also listening and reading (Swan,2005; Wei,2013).
33
 In teaching speaking in the classroom, the words oh, well, but, you now, and, okay,
listen, right, etc were often found in teacher talk. Those words are typically discourse markers
and perform a very important function in signaling changes in the interaction
(Walsh,2011:12). Discourse markers in teaching speaking play an important role for students to
understand teacher language better, which hence helps them to improve learning efficiency
(Othman, 2010).
In the classroom the teacher used different discourse markers in their talk to make the
teaching effective and enhance learner’s participation in the classroom. Othman(2010) stated
that the appropriate use of discourse markers by the teacher in the teaching and learning process
not only can improve the participation of the students but also contribute to the effectiveness of
learning.
Teaching English as a foreign language, particularly in public schools, implies different
issues and challenges for many teachers. In the teaching process, the teacher may set a topic or
material, give directions, give and take responses, determine who contributes to teaching and
learning activities, provide feedback to the students to get output effectively. The teacher may
share his/her own experiences with the students and encourage them to talk about their own
ones.
Teaching English as a foreign language was a problem in certain case group discussions
which could hamper learning of the target language. This was a sign of low proficiency in the
target language. Gage (2009) states there are variables that affect each other on the teachers’
and students’ performance. They are :
a. presage category: teacher’s years of experience, characteristics, age, and the teacher’s
belief of the subject knowledge she is teaching:
b. context category: the characteristics of the nation, region, community, school, and class in
which teaching takes place,
c. process category: which can also be broken down into three categories, namely, the teacher
thought process in planning and deciding, the teacher thought process and the content of
teaching, and the teacher thought process and students’ thought process, and
d. product represent the goal of all the foregoing categories. It includes the achievement of
cognitive objectives and also can refer to the achievement of social-emotional objectives.

Furthermore, discourse markers also help establish interpersonal relationships in the

34
classroom, creating a better atmosphere for active participation( Chapeton Castro, 2009;
Othman, 2010). Theys facilitate the process of interpretation and social involvement in spoken
interaction, and are essential to the maintenance of conversational in spoken interaction, and are
essential to the main stance of conversational cooperation, ensuring that interaction goes on
smoothly (Lam, 2009). All in all, by reducing understanding difficulties and social distance
between the teacher and the learners. these language units contribute to effectiveness of
learning in general and help create a shared space between the teacher and the students(Walsh,
2006). Simply put, Discourse Markers in teacher talk can help learners understand not only the
teacher’s language but also the purpose of a specific activity and how it relates to the context.

B. Relevant Studies
Firstly, Al Yaari (2013) conducted research about Using English Discourse Markers by
Saudy EFL Learners who conducted a study that the objective was to discuss the current study
attempts at detecting EDMs in the talk of Saudi EFL learners, their fluency, usage, etc. The
result of the study found that EDMs “and”, “but” and “also: are the most frequent EDMs in the
talk of Saudi EFL learners. In comparison to other EFL learners (native and non-native), Saudi
EFL learners use fewer EDMs. These results confirmed the claims that EFL learners use EDMs
less than native speakers.

Secondly, Gloria and Eva (2017) investigated the use of discourse markers (DMs) in
nonnative EFL teacher’s talk with primary and secondary school. The study concentrates on the
occurrences and frequencies of DMs and provides an account of the functional distribution of
the three most frequently used DMs (ok, so, and). The findings of the study might contribute to
raising awareness of the diversified functions of DMs, which could facilitate non-native EFL
teachers’ overall lesson organization and structuring of particular teaching segments.

Thirdly, Erten (2004) examines the importance of teaching fillers to EFL/ESL learners
in the classroom. He investigates whether or not they use it after being thought, if it is so, which
fillers they commonly use and why. This study is conducted to increase the learner’s awareness
of fillers when they hesitate to speak in a foreign language. The results demonstrate that the
students used the fillers after being taught and found that three fillers were commonly used by
the students, those are Ehm/Uhm, well, and how to say/ how can I say.
Fourthly, Castro (2009) conducted a study on the use and function of discourse
35
markers in EFL classroom interaction. It describes the occurrences and the frequencies of
discourse markers using a qualitative approach. Besides, it also provides an account for the
main functions of the discourse markers as they were used by a non-native teacher of English
and five adult students of EFL. The results that the discourse marker fulfills the number of
textual and interpersonal functions that may contribute greatly to the coherent and pragmatic
flow of the discourse generated in classroom interaction.
Considering those previous studies above, it can be concluded that some researcher
agreed that using discourse markers in teaching in classroom can to be interactive, build good
atmosphere and the build the approaches between teacher and students in the classroom and I
decided to analysis the use of discourse markers in the teaching speaking in EFL learners in
Senior high school and classify the types and functions of discourse markers.

C. Conceptual Framework

Discourse markers are needed in speaking because it is contributes to creating

cohesiveness, coherence, and meaning. Discourse markers are lexical items such as oh, well,
but, you know, and, okay, Listen, right, etc which have various functions notably serving as
connective elements of speech. Walsh (2011: 7) states that the words as right, ok, now, so,
alright, are typically discourse markers and form a very important function in signaling
changes in the interaction or the organization the learning. In fact, the appropriate use of
discourse markers in the classroom not only can improve the participation of the students but
also contribute to the effectiveness of learning.
Teachers in the EFL Classroom used different discourse markers in their teaching
speaking to make the teaching effective and enhance learner’s proficiency in the target
language. Baed on Fung and Charter’s theory (2007) about discourse markers in classroom
interaction, they classified dicourse markers into four categories: Interpersonal ( indicating
response, marking the attitude of the speaker), referential marking textual relationships between
verbal activities surrounding the dicourse markers), structural ( open and closing of topics,
summarizing, holding the floor), and cognitive ( denoting and thinking process, formulating,
and elaborating).
Brown (2007:165) states that interaction a the heart of communication, it is what
communication is all about. furthermore, the interaction the collaborative change of thought,
feeling, the idea between two or more people, resulting in a reciprocal effect on each other. In
the classroom interaction, the participant involved considered as the type of classroom
36
interaction depending on who communicates with whom, they were: the first was Teacher-
Learners. The first type is when a teacher talks with all the students or the whole class at the
same time. It means when teachers teaching the material, no exception of students ar hoped to
understand to all of the students in the classroom. The second was Teacher-Learners. It was
conducted when the teacher referred to the class but expects only one student or a group of
students to answer and often used for evaluation of students individually. The third was
Learners- Learners. It was called “pair work” and usually occurs when the teacher gives the
pair assignment for example a dialogue done pair group or statements in the classroom and the
last was Learners-Learners. It is called “ group work” as with pair work the teacher’s function
in here is that of consultant and individual groups report on heir work as a follow-up activity.
Besides that why the teacher used the dominant type of discourse makers can be
explained by the concept of teaching. There were some categories of the concept of teaching
according to Gage (2004), they were; presage category: teacher’s years of experience,
characteristics, age, and teacher’ belief of the subject knowledge she is teaching. context
category; the characteristics of the nation, region, community, school, and class in which
aching takes place. process category, which can also be broken down into the three categories.
namely, the teacher thought process in planning, and deciding; teacher thought process and
content of teaching and teacher thought process and students thought process and (d) product
represent the goal of all the foregoing categories. It includes the achievement of cognitive
objectives and can also refer to the achievement of social-emotional objectives.
To guide the student’s activation of a student’s attention the teacher can use discourse
markers in he/ she talks because teacher talk by using discourse markers can be attention and
build the atmosphere in the teaching-learning process.
The researcher tried to describe what types of discourse markers were used by the
teacher in English classroom interaction and to find out the reasons why the teacher used the
dominant type of discourse markers in teaching speaking based on researcher observation,
recording and interviewing to get the data about the interaction happens in the English
classroom.

37
 Teacher’s Discourse Markers in English
Classroom

Types of Discourse Classroom Interaction

Markers (Dagarin 2004)
(Fung and Charter 1. Teacher- Learners
2007) 2. Teacher-Learner
1. Interpersonal Marker 3. Learner-Learners
2. Referential Marker 4. Leraners- Learners
3. Structual Marker
4. Cognitive

Teacher’s
Reason

Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework

38
 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. The Research Design

The research deals with the teaching and learning process in the classroom that focuses
on the use of discourse markers by the teacher in English classroom interaction. This research
will use a descriptive qualitative design. The researcher will choose this design because of the
fact that the study deals with the language phenomenon as a social element.
Bogdan and Biklen (1992) stated that “Qualitative design is a research which has a
natural setting as the direct source of the data and the researcher is the key of the instrument. A
descriptive qualitative design was a method where the data should be analyzed by the content.
This design did not need accounting numerically and no treatments. Further, it involves an
analysis of data such as words, examples from interviews, transcripts, pictures, video or tape
recording, notes, and documents.

B. The Source of the Data Collection

The data will be collected through the analysis of questionnaires and interviews to find
out the dominant types of discourse markers she/he realized when teaching speaking in the
classroom. The source of data in this study is an English teacher who teaches at grade X of
SMA N 1 SITELLU TALI URANG JEHE and students of grade X who had chosen for the
willingness to give participation in this study. The data will be the utterances of the teacher
during English lessons in teaching speaking English under a natural classroom environment.
C. The Instrument of Data Collection

The data of this study will be collected by using audio recording, transcript and also
observation sheet. The audio recording will be used to record of spoken interaction, and
teaching-learning process. the transcript will be reared to the written record of spoken
39
interaction in the teaching and learning process.
D. The Techniques for Collecting The Data

To describe the teachers’ utterances that occurred during teaching speaking and learning
process the researcher will use some techniques as follows:
1. Observation

Observation is a systematic data collection approach. Researchers use all of their senses

40
 28

to examine people in natural settings or naturally occurring situations. it is an act of noticing

something or judgment or inference from something seen or experienced. By doing
observation, the researcher had the opportunity to know and understand the situation which
occurs in the teaching-learning process, to see things that might be unconsciously missed, and
to obtain information that might not be obtained from other techniques.
In this study, the observation carry out to discourse markers in teaching speaking. This will
nonparticipant observation, it means that although the researcher will presented in the
classroom, she will not participate in the activities. She just sit on the back of the classroom,
observed and recorded classroom interaction in teaching speaking. The classroom will observed
during English teaching and learning process.
2. Recording

The researcher will use the audio recording to record the classroom interaction in
English class. This technique will use to record the teacher and students in the class. The result
of this recording will in the form of transcription. The transcription will be used to
understand how the subject of the study organizes the utterances in the class interaction.

3. Interview

The interview is an activity that involves interviewer and interviewee where the
interviewer will give some questions to be answered by the interviewee. Ary et.al (1985;342)
stated “ In an interview, data are collected through face-to-face or telephone interaction
between the interviewer and the respondent”. Thus, in this case, the interviewer will conduct
collecting data by doing interaction or communication directly. But, it will also conduct by face
to face through via electronic device. The interview questions will be based on Seidman’s
Theory (1998) for conducting an interview section due to the interaction between the teacher
and students in teaching speaking in the classroom. Seidman (1998) recommends three
interviews to gain insight for in-depth, phenomenological based interviewing. Seidman
incorporates this method from Schuman (as cited in Seidman). This approach is based on open-
ended questions and intends to build and explore the participant’s response to the questions.
Hopefully, the participants can reconstruct his/her experience within the purpose of the study.
These three interviews are life history, details of the experience, and reflection on the meaning.
In additional, Syamsuddin (2011:95) stated that in qualitative research, interview
activity has two functions. The first function is as the main strategy in collecting data like data
in the form of interview transcripts, and the second function is an additional strategy for other
 29

techniques like participatory observation, document analysis, and photography. Then,

Creswell(2008;226) also classify the interview into four types, those types are: (1) one-on-one
interview, (2) focus group interview, (3) telephone interview, (4) electronic E-mail interview.
Based on the types of the interview above, the researcher uses a one-on-one interview.
According to him, a one-on-one interview is a data collection process in which the researcher
asks questions and records answers from only one participant in the study at a time. The
researcher prepares some questions to relate to using discourse markers in teaching speaking.
To collect data from the interview, the researcher makes some procedures. Those are (1)
preparing the concept of question that want to be asked to subject and (2) the researcher
transcripts the result of the interview.
4. Classified

After the teaching and learning process of English will do in recorded and analyzed the
subjects of this research will interviewe to gain further during the teaching- learning process.
According to the conception of teaching proposed by Gage (2009), there were variables: (a)
presage category, (b) context category, (c) teacher’s thought processes category and (d) product
which might affect to each other on teacher’s and students’ performance. The data from the
interview session of the teacher showed the reason for the existence of the dominant type of
discourse markers produced by the teacher which she will correlate to Gage’s theory.
E. The Technique of Data Analysis

After collecting the data through observation, recording, and interviewing, the
researcher will analyze the data by some steps below , the steps are:

1. The audio recording of the class will be transcribed down in the form of a written
transcript in order to get what will be spoken by the teacher.
2. Segmenting the transcript which had several sentences into the clause.
3. Analyzing the clauses by grouping them based on the types of discourse markers.

4. Determining the dominant types of discourse markers that mostly used in the teacher
talking in English as a foreign language classroom.
 30

𝑭
𝑿= × 100 %

X = Percentage of discourse markers

F = The frequency of discourse markers occurrences

N = The total number of all discourse markers occurrences

1. Conducting the interview section with the English teacher based on Seidman’s theory
(1998).
2. Discovering the reasons for the existences of the dominant types of discourse markers
realized in the way she/he will categorizing the result of teachers’ interview based on the
conception of teaching (Gage, 2004).
3. Making the conclusion about the discourse markers based on the experiences in the
classroom for teaching speaking.
31
 32

REFERENCES

Alami, M. (2015). Pragmatic Functions of Discourse Markers: A Review of Related Literature.

International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature ( IJSELL).3(3):23-
47-31-34.
Alharbi, H.A. (2015). Improving students English speaking proficiency in Saudi public school.
International Journal of Instruction. 8(2): 106-107.
Al-Yaari, S.A., Al Hammadi, F.S., Alyami, S.A., & Almaflehi, N. (2013). Using English
discourse markers (EDMs) by Saudi EFL learners: A descriptive approach. International
Journal of English Language. 1(2):1-26.
Arends, Richard. (2008). Learning to Teach. Jogjakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Ary, Donald, Jacobs, L.,C., Razaivich. (1985). Introduction To Research in Education. New
York: Holt, Rinehart.
Al-Yaari, S. (2013). Using Engish Discourse Markers (EDMs) by Saudi EFL Learners: A
Descriptive Approach. International Journal of English Language Education, 2(1): 2325-
0887.
Bogdan, R & Biklen, S K. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to
Theory and Methods. Needam Height: Allyn and Bacon.
Brenes, CA. (2005). Analyzing Oral Native using discourse analysis tools: Observing how
spoken language works Costa Rica, University of Costa Rica.
Brinton L.J (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English Grammaticalization and discourse function,
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Brown, G.: Yule, G. (1989). Teaching the Spoken Language: An approach based on the analysis
of conversational English. Cuba. Edicion Revolucionaria.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy.
Second Edition. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Bygate, M. (1991). Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chapeton Castro, C.M. (2009). The use and function of discourse markers in EFL classroom
interaction. Profile, 11. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Faculted de Ciencias
Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras. 57-77.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (3rd ed). Upper Sadle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Dagarin, Mateza. (2004). Classroom Interaction and communication strategies in Learning
English ASA Foreign. Sloven: Sloven University.
De Fina, A. 1997. An analysis of Spanish bienas a Marker of Classroom Management in
Teacher-Student Interaction. Journal of Pragmatics. 28(30).
Erten, Selcen. (2014). Teaching fillers and student’s filler usage; a study conducted at ESOGU
preparation school International Journal of Teaching and Education. Vol 2 (3): 67-79.
Eva, Gloria. (2007). Discourse markers in non-native EFL teacher talk. Studies in Secong
langauge learning and teaching. Department of nglish Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and
fine ats, Adam Mickiewic University, Kalisz. 649-671.
Fox Tree, J. E.,& Schroc, J.C. (2002). Basic meanings of you know and I mean.
Journal of Pragmatics 34(20):727-747.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers. Journal of pragmatics. (14): 383-395.
Fung. L. & Carter , R. (2007). Discourse Markers and Spoken English Native and Learner use in
Pedagogic Settings. Applied Linguistics. 28(3): 410-439.
Gage, N, L. (2004). A Concept of Teaching. USA: Springer Science + Bussnies Media, LLC.
Garg, S., & Gautam, A. (2015). Learning English can change your life for the better.
International Journal of English Language, Literature and Humanities. III(II).

32
 33

Graesser, Arthur C, Millis, Keith K, and Zwaan, R.A (1997). Discourse comprehension.
Annual Review of Psychology. (48): 163-189.
Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London; Longman.
Harmer, Jeremy. ( 2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Third edition. Longman
Pearson Educational Limited.
Harmer, Jeremy. ( 2007). How to Teach English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Hornby,A.S. (1985). Oxford Advance Learners Dictionary of Current Language. Oxford;
Oxford University Press.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. (1992). Positive interdependence: Key to effective cooperation. In
R. Hertz- Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds). Interaction in cooperative groups: The
theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp.174-199). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Jucker, A., & Ziv, Y. (1998). Discourse markers; Descriptions and theory.
Amsterdam/ Philadelphia; John Benjamins.
Lam, P.W.Y. (2009). Discourse particles in corpus data and textbooks: The case of well. Applied
Linguitics. 31(2): 26-81.(http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/am).
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin H. Manser, (1995). Oxford Learner’s Pocket Dictionary. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Nunan, D. (1987). The Teacher as Curriculum Developer. Adelaide: National Curriculum
Resource Centre.
Nunan, D. (1991). Research Method in Language Learning. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publisher.
Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English Language Teaching, Mc Graw-Hill Companies.
Othman, Zarina. (2010). The Use of okay, right and yeah in Academic Lectures by Native
Speakers Lecturers. Their anticipated and real meaning. Dicourse studies. 12(5): 665-681.
Quirk, R., Svartvik, J., Leech, G., & Greenbaum, S. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the
English language. London: Longman.
Richard, Jack, C. And Will, A. Reynanda. ( 2002). Methodology in Language. Teaching.
United Kingdom: Cambridge University.
Rymes, B. (2016). Classroom Discourse Analysis. A tool for critical reflection. Ney York;
Hampton Press.
Seidman, Irving. (1998). Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researcher in
Education and social Sciences. Teacher College Press.
Sarosdy, et al. (2006). Applied Linguistics. Estekunki Ez Ember: Unpublished.
Sayedeh Ahmadi & Lai- Mei Leong (2017). An analysis of factors Influencing Learners’ English
Speaking Skill. International Journal of Research in English Education.
Schiffrin, Deborah. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Cambridge; Blackwell. Schiffrin,
Deborah. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H.E. (2001). The Handbook od Discourse Analysis.
Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers.
Sharnmada, E. C. & Yakubu, (2013). An analysis of discourse markers in academic writing
report writing: pedagogical implications. International Journal of Academic Research
and Reflection.Vol 1(3): 15-24.
Sinclair, J and Malcol Coulthard. (1992). Toward An Analysis of Discourse.
Malcolm Coulthard (Ed.). Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis (hlm.1-34). New
York: Rouledge.
Sudjana, Nana. (1995). Dasar-Dasar Proses Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta: Sinarbarub
Algensindo.
33
 34

Sugiyono. ( 2008). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung:

ALFABETA.
Swan, M. (2005). practical English Usage. Oxford : Oxford Univrsity Press.
Tarigan, H. G. (1990). Prinsip - Prinsip Dasar Metode Riset Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran
Bahasa. Bandung: Angkasa.
Tubbs, Steward. (2001). A Systematic Approach to Small Group Interaction. New York:Mc
Graw-Hill.
Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching. Practice and Theory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Van Dijk, T.(1997). Discourse as structure and process. London; Sage Publishers.
Walsh, Steve.(2006), Investigating Classroom Discourse, New York: Routledge.
Walsh, Stev. (2012). Conceptualizing classroom interactional competence. Novitas Royal.
Research on Youth and Language. 6(1): 1-14.
Wei, S. (2013). The importance of Discourse markers in English Learning and Teaching.
Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 3(11): 2136-2140.
Yule, George. (2006). The Study of Language. Third Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

34